South China/West Philippine Sea

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

If you actually read what I said, to wit:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1+1=2

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. China owned 8% of US public debt,

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Let us look at it from other possibilities.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Actually I was using the dictionary to have a definite basis for arguments, you obviously are unable to back up your claims with anything even vaguely resembling a fact so you have to resort to insults as your arguments are based solely from your opinion.

 

Don't worry though, opinions are like armpits, we all have 2 and they all stink.

 

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

Where does it state that contiguous cannot be used temporally. That would depend if one views time as a single canvas or as a continuous flow of history as the former would be confusing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But nice try attempt at being logical.

So if you weren't referring to the land mass, what else could it be? Certainly not the political aspect, much less the socio-economic one. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole here.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

[Jourdan]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[Jourdan]

If you actually read what I said, to wit:

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

 

I wll try to make it clear to you where you massively failed in logic...To wit (this is funny since there's very little involved here)

 

Statement: Actually a state only exists as long as its government (exists)

 

Proof

1. every change of a government may lead to the occupation of the territories of a previous state

2. but as the laws have changed

3. then it is a new state

 

Premise 1 talks about a change in government. Fair enough.

Premise 2 (a not-so-hidden premise) then adds "the laws have changed". Why would they change? Oh, is it because there was a change in government? From what I know, change in governments do NOT ALWAYS lead to change in the laws of the land. Heck, England had several dynastic changes and the laws stayed pretty much the same.

Conclusion 3 is nothing but a re-statement of the Statement only with an added premise to somehow slyly buttress a weak statement. It's nothing but a logical fallacy because the offered proof isn't a really a proof.

 

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

 

No, it is obvious to anyone who studied symbolic logic that you just committed a circular argument: An egg is an egg because an egg, that has a yolk, is an egg.

 

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

 

1+1=2

 

Oh, did the Chinese turn into Martians? Are they now speaking Martian? writing in Martian? Worshiping a Martian God? do they now live in Mars?

 

You just don't get it, do you??? The state is an association of people who share a common sociocultural interests and who collectively assert control over a territory. A government could be of help to that, but is never the sole factor to establish one. Somalia for example existed as a state without a government during its civil war years. Iraq as well during the American-led US occupation. You could also have governments without states such as the Palestinian authority. So there's no one-to-one relationship between a state and a government.

 

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

 

Facetious? is that the word of the month or something? hahahaha. You're all f#&king funny.

 

Let us look at it from other possibilities.

 

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

 

And now we have to change tact lol. Why the change of heart from a hardliner "US will come to the Philippines' side because of MDT" to "anti-Chinese alliance" with "swallowing of pride"???

 

Why draw up an alliance now??? I thought Uncle Sam loves the Philippines and that love was enough to save us all. What happened?

 

You all are intellectual pansies. You can't even admit that your position is so f#&king weak that you have to sheepishly change your position. And oh, did you just say "US COULD PROBABLY..."? Wow, now even the help isn't guaranteed anymore. So much for MDT ey?

 

It supports the "Freedom of the Seas" which the US has been harping on because the US does not want China controlling it's own oil production.

 

WTF? hahahahahaha. The US does not have a say in China's oil production. Are you f#&king nuts? China is a sovereign state!!! And the US knows better not to f#&k sovereignty. So f#&king stupid for even saying this.

 

The US does not want China to control maritime traffic in the South East Asia. That's what the US is worried about. They want unimpeded entry to Asia. If China got hold of those islands, the whole of South China sea would become a Chinese lake, which would be tricky for the US since it has substantial economic interest in the region.

 

Any US president would think twice before abandoning an "ally" at least one with such close ties to the USA. Which is probably the reason that the CCP (partially funded by the PRC) is being very militant in "encouraging" it's vocal supporters to cry foul about the VFA. Remember if the Philippines cancels the VFA then the US would be more inclined to not interfere.

 

Close ties, ey? tsk tsk tsk. How's no.2 trade partner to err, I don't know for the Philippines??? You're all intellectual shitheads. At the end of the day, America will cry a tear for the Philippines for going to war against China, probably send a naval contingent for defensive "peace-keeping" purposes, and throw hurtful rhetoric at the Chinese. But American government will not compromise its own domestic interests for a foreign state. The American public are just damn too intelligent to allow their government to do that. You know why the US is pulling out of Afghanistan despite that the Taliban has actually been gaining grounds since? It's because public support is no longer there. It's a drain on their economy with no end in sight. Heck, if the US would swallow its pride and leave a country that it "freed" from the "axis of Evil", what made you think that it would choose to engage China on behalf of the Philippines????

 

You're all f#&king dreamers. Wake up and read your history books.

 

 

Diplomacy is useless unless it can be backed by naked force. Who would negotiate with the child throwing a temper tantrum, just spank the child and leave him crying in his crib.

 

Really? So Gandhi was a faker? Nelson Mandela too? Did Chulalongkorn threaten the English and the French with its Siamese army? Oh, was he backed by the Americans???

Again, statements like this show how shallow your knowledge of history is.

 

 

In a state of war, the USA can cancel its notes to the PRC, imagine removing 8% of it's national debt by going to war. (Yes Virginia, you don't have to pay a debt to someone you are at war with.)

 

Oh!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha. Now, this is funny. You don't know s@%t abt money, ey??? Here's the deal. The US cannot do that without violating WTO and IMF rules. And doing so will have severe consequences as to the standing of the dollar. It will get devalued. Its credit rating would get hit. Interest rates will soar. And that will plunge the US into another recession.

 

Should I elaborate on this further? Even Paul Krugman, who thinks that the US public debt to China is not that all-too-problematic, wouldn't dare suggest this.

 

I feel sorry for you. Err, try reading Paul Samuelson's economics textbook. That's a good start to learn the basics of monetary policies.

 

Your points 2, 3, and 4 are on an individual basis, however if you combine the potential buying capability of the ASEAN nations that are at loggerheads with China over the Spratleys, then that would INCREASE the USA's export market, meaning more money FLOWING INTO their economy, at the same time cutting down on the IMPORTS from the PRC cuts down of the money FLOWING OUT of their economy, factoring in a war boom, this could be just what they need to jump-start their economy.

 

Enough of the stupidity!!!!!!! Economic trade is not something you design on a piece of paper. It is market-driven. Trade patterns are dictated by competitive advantages, fiscal and monetary policies, and international rules. No country could unilaterally close its borders to trade - that's unfair trade practices.

 

Also, you clearly have no clue how economics work. The existing US-China relationship is so complex at all levels that no one on each side even wants to substantially disturb the status quo. The Chinese cannot simply dump the dollar by manipulating the goods or money markets because it will adversely reduce the value of its dollar-denominated assets, not to mention that it will cause the renminbi to appreciate, hence hurting its exports. The Americans, on the other hand, couldn't simply shun China because it needs Chinese demand for its products, and the Chinese funds to bouy up the weak domestic economy.

 

In sum, the ASEAN nations simply don't have the competitive advantages that China has, don't have the market demand that the US wants, and do not offer anything else, e.g. foreign direct investments, to the Americans.

 

To think that you really have to stress some phrases in your post...tsk tsk tsk. It's just laughably stupid.

 

As for the Chinese investments into the US, imagine if they NATIONALIZE those, as they did with the Nissei of the West Coast during WW2, again this stimulates their economy and would probably help lower their deficit.

 

Oh geesh, you have such a wild imagination. The world NOW is different. It's so easy to pull out foreign direct investments out of any country. Technology is so good now that speculators could even wreck havoc on economies just by shifting funds here and there with few mouse clicks. The US would only be able to keep the physical plants + inventories because obviously, those are hard to pull out of any country. But that's only a small portion of the investments. The more liquid investments would have been long gone before the Army could even plant a foot on any Chinese-owned factory in the US.

 

Also, the US is no Venezuela. The large US corporations who have substantial Chinese investments would not approve of such unlawful act. It would be a cold day in hell for these US corporations to side with the US government and risk the drops in the share prices in markets where they operate, both inside and outside of US.

 

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

 

Nothing that you said made sense. The US is not a warmonger state. It's not a rouge state who'd willfully violate WTO and IMF rules out of sympathy for the Philippines or your "alliance" BS.

 

And please, the US will resort to diplomacy because it can. It's intelligent enough to know when and how to use it. It has less to do with a stick than just having a sound mind.

 

only stupid fools like you would think that diplomacy only works when you have a stick. That's just insecurity to the extreme.

 

Actually I was using the dictionary to have a definite basis for arguments, you obviously are unable to back up your claims with anything even vaguely resembling a fact so you have to resort to insults as your arguments are based solely from your opinion.

 

Don't worry though, opinions are like armpits, we all have 2 and they all stink.

 

No, yours stink. That I'm sure.

 

I am unable to backup my claim with facts??? wow. In this board, I have mentioned more facts than you all have done in less number of posts. I gave you historical facts. Who mentioned that Italy only existed as a state after the unification of the city-states of Milan, Florence, etc? Who mentioned facts and figures abt the state of affairs between US and China? Who mentioned how UNCLOS is such a flawed document based on differing interpretations of countries claiming the islands in the South China sea? Who mentioned that the articles of the MDT could even give the US excuses to f#&king leave the Philippine alone to fight China? Who mentioned examples of non-aggressive diplomacy that actually worked?

 

Meanwhile, you talk suppositions out of a Webster definition. You talk in terms of "IFs" and "What Ifs". Are those facts??? Wow.

 

Here's the deal. You want to know the scholarly "definitions" of a state? Read these:

- Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber

- The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin

- Philosophy of Right by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

- Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

- The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

There you go. Its so juvenile to rely on a dictionary to define a sociopolitical entity. It goes to show how shallow your knowledge of political sciences.

 

 

Where does it state that contiguous cannot be used temporally. That would depend if one views time as a single canvas or as a continuous flow of history as the former would be confusing.

 

excuses...excuses. this is the time to resort to a dictionary. You check the dictionary on how to use the word "contiguous" properly. Heck, what you did would have been forgivable if it there was a hint of sarcasm or something that would suggest it was colloquial. But nay, you used it whilst faking erudition.

 

So if you weren't referring to the land mass, what else could it be? Certainly not the political aspect, much less the socio-economic one. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole here.

 

I am referring to the Chinese people! My goodness. It's so f#&king obvious from the context. In fact, this is how PRC/ROC frame their historical claims. In fact, the Philippines historical claim of sovereignty over the islands is tied to the fact that there were Filipino settlers on the islands post-WW2, making the island a de facto part of Philippines.

 

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

 

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

 

You don't have to sound so intelligent when talking abt s@%t. its this: you're full of s@%t. Eat it. or maybe sniff it. That's more productive than just putting in on display. Just as what you've done here.

[TheSmilingBandit]

You don't have to sound so intelligent when talking abt s@%t. its this: you're full of s@%t. Eat it. or maybe sniff it. That's more productive than just putting in on display. Just as what you've done here.

Well it's is obvious that you have neither manners nor intelligence, account suspended for attacking another member.

 

Everyone say bye-bye to Jourdan.

[TheSmilingBandit]

1. I would take it that you're referring to the Spratlys.

 

2. I agree. Quid pro quo.

 

3. In my opinion, the US backed up by the UN can convince China to get China into a round-table talk with the claimants. I'm pretty sure the UNCLOS will be the guide used by the participants in this discussion but China will go vehemently against it. Their historical claim baloney can easily be dismantled. The claimants may use an argument similar to yours to render China's historical claim moot. I see the UNCLOS winning in the end.

 

4. A US victory is assured in the event of a war. I don't think China would be stupid enough to engage the US, unless, it wants the annihilation of the Chinese race.

 

5. Just a question, Isn't the US already exporting to the ASEAN claimants?

 

6. When you say nationalize, do you mean an American take-over?

3. Unfortunately China is also a member of the defense council of the US, thus with VETO rights on the whole UN support.

 

4. A US victory is not assured, their lines of supply will be very extensive and assuming they join in they need basing in the area, remember the combined forces of the other claimants to the Spratley's aren't even 1/10th of the firepower of the PRC. So basically all the rest of us can do is provide R&R facilities and basing facilities for the US forces. The biggest boondoggle here would be the chances that we would try pissing on the US, specially with the people that think we can do it alone.

 

5. Yes, but imagine if the ASEAN claimants stop buying from China (due to the war) and buy from the US instead, how much more income will that be for the US, and how much more of their old factories can they bring out of mothballs.

 

6. Yes.

[TheSmilingBandit]

3. No, what I mean is the UN and the US will talk China into having round-table talks with the ASEAN claimants and Taiwan.

 

4. Yes, I honestly think, the ASEAN alliance would get beaten soundly by China. Of course, we would be providing a halfway house and logistics base for the Yanks. They can use Subic to dock their super carriers, hunter-killers and Ohio class subs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Japanese and Indians would join in the fray with South Korea keeping North Korea in check. I mean if push comes to shove, the US will take out all the missile silos of the Chinese, bomb its airfields to kingdom come and annihilate all Chinese subs with its superior hunter-killers.

3. Ah, I see what you mean, well we all know how powerless the UN really is. Let's face it the UN is probably even more corrupt that the Philippines.

 

4. As far as "taking out the missile silo's", that would be a problem, if the PRC feels like they have nothing left to lose, what is to prevent them from starting the nuclear fireworks? The MAD is the reason that the PRC remains confident, because while the USN has superior planes the the PLAAF, the PLAAF does have a quantitative superiority, they can lose 4 planes for every 1 the USN loses and still come out on top, not to mention that the Chinese highways (in certain areas) can double as airfields, and to make matters worse, several PLAAF fighters are rough terrain capable. I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. Perhaps if the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Indonesia were willing to cooperate then maybe there would be a better chance in helping out the US, on the other hand, I think we can safely assume that the spoiled brats that are the ASEAN can talk as if they were the big boys, but in truth they are pretty much looking for the US or Russia (in the case of Vietnam) to help them out.

[tk421]

Also the last time I heard, the US' F-22 Raptor fleet are grounded because of a glitch in pilot's oxygen supply.

 

Besides, when it comes to 1-on-1 dog fights, Raptors are outmatched. Their strength lies in delivering surprise (long-range) attacks and bugging out.

 

And responding to that 'peace and friendship' stance of China - they doesn't seem to be exhibiting that in the Spratly's disbute.

 

An observation: It's really funny how many Filipinos are willing to sell their country for personal gains, no? It's really a strange world we live in.

[tk421]

Personally though, I wouldn't bet on the US helping us in this dispute if ever it degenerates into a shooting battle. I mean, yeah, they're acting as a deterrent now because of the VFA and all. But if China calls our bluff and starts a shooting spree, I don't think the US can help us in any way... except diplomatically.

[tk421]

I wouldn't call it dis-information if our other ASEAN neighbors are also reporting the same thing. Unless it's also a dis-information campaign from them to also get more military aid from the US.

[TheSmilingBandit]

Tactically, the US will not put a carrier battlegroup in the West Philippine Sea in a shooting match unless the admiral's brain is addled. The area is too confined.

I agree, the South China Sea is definitely too confined to use carriers in, in fact the USN and the USAF should use the Philippine Islands as their unsinkable carriers against the PRC.

 

how can they exibit friendship when in fact. We have shown agressiveness against china. By sending our frigate.. We should have send instead diplomats to Beijing. To lay the policy of friendship and welcome stay. In our part of the spratlys.

I agree, the PRC is being friendly, the same way Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were to Czechoslovakia and Poland and the Low Nations and Denmark and Norway.

 

and this so called chinese intrusion. Maybe this is a dis information campaign of our government. To get more military aid from america. The U.s. Congress should investigate this. Incident. To make sure about the exact picture. To avoid mistakes on whos lying to who?

I suppose that would depend on how you define intrusion.

[tk421]

if thats the case. We would be destroyed in an american led war.. We should kick this yankees out to save our country.

 

If we can do that to the 'yankees', why can't we do the same to China?

[TheSmilingBandit]

intrusion its an illegal act of entering ,seizing or taking possession of anothers property.. 2. Act or instance of thrusting or forcing in without invitation! In all meaning of the word it is us who violated their share of that area by sending ships. To bully them. And they just acted in self defense.

And how do you rationalize that? It could be argued that the PRC sent ships to bully the Philippines also.

 

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that the US will launch attacks to China using airfields in the Philippines?

I'm not sure they would go that far, at least not without a firmer alliance with Russia and/or India, but instead of risking their carriers, they can use our airfields which would ensure that they have a place to land at the end of the day.

 

if thats the case. We would be destroyed in an american led war.. We should kick this yankees out to save our country.

In my personal opinion, I would prefer to be under the USA than the PRC.

[TheSmilingBandit]

right now the americans have illegally occuppied our country. Thru the vfa. And they have in place a puppet government. China is not occuppying anything. So we cant kick them out. Coz they are not in.. The best thing that could happen is the puppet governments of the yankees here.. Lose the election. And the new democratic government could cry for help. Definitely Beijing will respond and they will liberate us. Base on the three world theory.

The PRC is illegally occupying Tibet, as for the Americans, they gave us freedom back in 1946, something they didn't have to do. In fact if you look at the various American territories (i.e. Guam, Northern Samoa, etc. etc.) they are in pretty decent financial shape, something most of the provinces of China, aside from the tourist destinations, do not have.

 

what kind of ships. We send a frigate heavily armed with an anti ship gun.. They only send a surveillance un armed ships. To suggest we must not enter their part of that area.. They have more yes because they are richer. Are they aggressive no.

Un-armed surveillance ships? Are you certain about that? Last I heard the 53H3's come equipped with 16 surface to surface missiles and dual 100mm anti-ship guns. Doesn't sound too unarmed to me. Edited December 10, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[tk421]

Now I see. Every country is wrong - except China.

[tk421]

"ASEAN intruders"... Am still trying to wrap my head around that. Wow.

[tk421]

Hmmm... I'm starting to even wonder why you keep referring to the Philippines as 'our' country...

 

Maybe all those new military purchases are in response to that new aircraft carrier and stealth planes and increased missiles that China is producing?

[TheSmilingBandit]

The PRC is as peaceful as the 3rd Reich was under Uncle Adolf. :lol:

[tk421]

^thats your speculation. Here is the real picture those new weaponry were bought to contain piracy in somalia.. Its just a coincidence that the time of the purchase. Hostile acts were committed by our country and other asean members.

 

Maybe we should just all disarm pull our collective pants down and lean over, right? Oh... except China and Nazis, of course.

[TheSmilingBandit]

^The Third Reich was peaceful naman talaga. Until they Gang up on him. By the Allies. As i have said history is written by the victors.

Okay, aside from the leftist fringe, does anyone else believe that the 3rd Reich and the PRC are peaceful?

[tk421]

I can't decide if the poster is delusional or just being sarcastic about China and the 3rd Reich's 'peaceful' intent...

 

I think our naval upgrades are also meant for the very same Somali pirates, not for war with our neighbors. We are a defensive nation, after all.

 

And those 'war-type' vessel that the China encountered... oh, they weren't meant for them. It was just looking for Abu Sayyaf bandits in the same waters where Chinese surveillance ships just happened to have been at the time.

 

The new American warships we're procuring? Those are meant to be displayed in our new naval museums.

[tk421]

So are we. We are peaceful! Our navy just wanted to make sure those surveillance ships were not going to be attacked by pirates! You know how dangerous our waters are....

[TheSmilingBandit]

Okay, ignoring the fringe thinkers, do you people think that it would be better if the various ASEAN nations agree to cooperate rather than try to take sole possession of these undersea mountains?

[tk421]

yes indeed and the pirate ship is del pilar. Bought from america. Extorting chinese fishermen.

 

I beg your pardon. Del Pilar is not extorting chinese fishermen, it's just there to safeguard chinese fishermen from somali pirates.