South China/West Philippine Sea

[dos8dos]

^its more like the chinks are pissed right now

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

Thanks for the heads up Camiar.

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[johnlove]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited June 2, 2012 by fatchubs

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[dos8dos]

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

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

My point exactly. Thanks for the simplified explanation!

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

 

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

Edited June 3, 2012 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

 

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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