fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Look, you brought up the UN charter. Perhaps, you can explain to me what the obligations of the parties under the charter of the UN. Why are you just giving me the link without explaining it? Besides, you brought it up so explain the part in the UN Charter that Article VI is alluding to. You're asking me to enlighten you so it means you're assuming that I posted a scenario that will not run counter to the UN. Where did I mention this scenario I painted (actually, it was you who drew the skirmish scenario. I was just saying what the US would do.) will not run counter to it? Bringing up the UN charter was incidental since it is part of the MDT which correct me if I am wrong was your basis to believe that the US will join the fray and retaliate by sinking one of the Chinese ships. If that would be the case, is it right to be selective in which article to choose to justify one's basis rather than looking at the entire MDT (from articles 1-8)? As such I asked you whether your belief (of what the US will do) will not run counter to any of the articles, should there be any. YES, I assumed that when one made the MDT as his basis for the US to join the fray to retaliate by sinking one of China's ship it was seen as adhering to what the MDT says in totality rather than selectively. It was the prudent thing to do ... "Where did I mention this scenario I painted will not run counter to it" ... So are you simply asking me literally or making a statement that the scenario you painted did not take that to consideration? If you are asking me, then obviously it was the reason why I asked the question because I wanna know whether or not you considered that article when you made your stand. If it was the latter, wherein it was meant to tell me that you don't claim that it will run counter, then I now know where you are coming from. The charter of the UN I believe is easy to understand ... in my opinion in relation to our discussion, its about avoiding WAR and respect for the laws (treaties as well). That is why I believe that the US while they should not renege on the MDT with the Philippines should not join the fray and instead just protect the Philippines from further aggression and find ways for an eventual peaceful resolution. In other words the US being in a tight situation MUST come up with a WIN-WIN solution. One that will not further anger the Chinese which could possibly escalate this simple skirmish into a WAR and at the same time be able to DEFEND the RP for further aggression. If you think there are other scenarios, then go ahead and think that way. I'm not stopping you to think that way. If you want me to agree with you, which is what I think you're trying to do, I won't agree with you. I have my opinion. After the US sinks its ship, I expect China to negotiate and the US to dictate the terms. I already said this in one of my posts. I'm not being technical, I'm being factual that the Americans won almost every battle with the NVA and VC and that it was Japan which occupied China for 8 years. Yes, I am assuming that China will be dumb if it retaliated. If you want me to agree with you, I'm not. I have my own opinion and you have yours. Anything else? I'm agreeing to disagree with you. I don't think we will agree in this scenario. I know we have different views on this matter ... we both can never claim which one of us is correct as I've said we're both speculating/second guessing what may happen. On the contrary, you're wrong in your assumption that I'm trying to make you agree with me. My objective really is to present my views. I did agree with you on certain aspects but will maintain my belief as well on others which is in conflict with yours. At the end of the day this thread is for us to exchange ideas and test each one's opinions. We can't be the jury on our own arguments but it will be the other readers (some of them may agree or disagree so you will see them post their own opinions). Or maybe in due time should the scenario we painted actually becomes a reality, we'll know in hindsight who made the right opinion. Granted that you are being FACTUAL, does your ASSUMPTION that China will be dumb if she retaliates a GUARANTEE that CHINA won't do this dumb act of retaliating? Obviously NOT. People knows its dumb to do certain things and yet at times we still do it. That is the very point I am trying relay to you. It's FACTUAL too unless you want to disprove it. 1 Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I was being factual on the Sino-Japanese and Vietnam war. China being dumb if it retaliates is my belief. Now if you believe that China will retaliate, then think that way. I'm not making you agree with me. What is factual? As I said, I agree to disagree with you. Anything else? That your assumption of China will be dumb if she retaliates is NOT a GUARANTEE that she won't do the Dumb Act of retaliating. The FACT is there are instances that people know doing a particular act would be dumb and yet they do it. This is the point being relayed to you unless you want to dispute this FACT. Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I was asking you to elaborate on the UN charter since you brought it up. What do you mean you asked me whether my belief of what the US will do will run counter to any of the articles, should there be any? You asked me this: Here is the link to the charter of the UN as requested.Why don't you enlighten me on this as to how the scenario you painted will run counter to it? The it you're referring to is the UN charter which is why I asked you to elaborate the part in the UN charter which Article VI is alluding to. Don't convolute your posts. If you don't know that part, then just say you don't know instead of convoluting your posts. Do you know the part of the UN charter which Article VI is alluding to or not? If you can't answer this by yes or no, then don't convolute your posts. You can't even give me a straight answer. Well didn't I already gave you my POV why the scenario you painted counters that of the UN Charter. SO what is this still all about??? "The charter of the UN I believe is easy to understand ... in my opinion in relation to our discussion, its about avoiding WAR and respect for the laws (treaties as well). That is why I believe that the US while they should not renege on the MDT with the Philippines should not join the fray and instead just protect the Philippines from further aggression and find ways for an eventual peaceful resolution. In other words the US being in a tight situation MUST come up with a WIN-WIN solution. One that will not further anger the Chinese which could possibly escalate this simple skirmish into a WAR and at the same time be able to DEFEND the RP for further aggression" How can the US not renege on the MDT and not join the fray in the same breath? Contradictory statements again. How can you protect the Philippines if you don't join the fray? Simple, the MDT did not spell out "MUTUAL AID" = mandatory on the part of either party, in this case the US to be physically present when the Philippines retaliate (should they wish to). The US can continue to provide "military aid" which is essentially part of the treaty of providing mutual aid. If the US wishes to donate 3 of their best warships and these warships, all under the control and jurisdiction of the RP were used to retaliate and sink one or all of China's warship then it is tantamount to providing mutual aid without joining the fray. It's just like MJ providing NC his alma matter the latest MJ shoes that enhanced the performance of the players which went on to win the NCAA title. MJ provided "aid" in terms of equipment but he didn't join the fray to win the title. Edited June 7, 2012 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Again, my belief that China will not retaliate is firm. If you think it's not a guarantee, then that's your opinion. You say that "the fact is there are instances that people know doing a particular act would be dumb and yet they do it". I say there are instances that people will do the smart thing and that is not to retaliate. This is also a fact. Would you wanna dispute it? So are you saying its a guarantee? The mere fact that both our claims are non disputable obviously shows that my conclusion is correct ... There ain't a guarantee that what you claim is the ONLY possibility. Thus as I said I am just showing to you the other possibility. I thought you have agreed to disagree, yet you are still raising a lot of issues? Anyway, whatever pleases you ... Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I was asking you the part of the UN Charter which Article VI is alluding to and not your point of view. What part? I think it is clearly stated in Art VI as highlighted below word for word .. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.The way the MDT was drafted, it was a general rather than being specific right? Therefore it encompasses all applicable articles pertaining to such.And as I said having referred to the MDT as your basis for the picture you've painted, it is presumed that you would have in the practice of prudence took these into considerations first. Did you? Art IV is more specific ...Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.Again, if you took the whole MDT into consideration and not only a specific article that defines what an "armed attack" is you should have take into consideration that the attack should be reported and let the UN Security Council do its job rather than join the fray to "retaliate". Quote Link to comment
camiar Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I agree with fatchubs. The US can comply with the MDT without having to send its own troops to fight. They can provide weapons, ammo, equipment, and most importantly, military intelligence. A similar example was during the Falklands War. US has a similar arrangement with UK in case of armed agression in the Atlantic. US never physically joined the fighting, but they provided vital intelligence to UK, particularly military satellite photos. Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) You posted this: How can the US protect us by not joining the fray? How can the US be able to defend RP without joining the fray? I'm befuddled by your statements. What I know is, the best warships of the US are the Nimitz-class super carriers. Do you actually think the US would donate even one of these super carriers? What do we have in our navy that would make China stop from sinking more of our ships in the scenario that you drew? Again that question is plain and simple to answer. Using your very same argument that the Chinese would be dumb to retaliate should the US sink one of their ship, wouldn't the Chinese be dumber if they would launch an attack on the US war ships if these are stationed to defend any attacks on the Philippines ships? As I said they could defend without lifting a finger or firing a shot. The scenario I painted is possible but probability of it to happen is low to none. Haven't you hear of stories of rich people donating to charity most if not all of their most precious assets? But hey, ain't you just asking if there are other possibilities? This is an extreme one. None the less the one I posted above regarding the US ships stationing themselves to protect the RP ships from further attack is a more feasible one. Edited June 7, 2012 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I took prudence into consideration before making my opinion. In the scenario you painted. The Chinese didn't show diplomacy since they sank one of our ships. The US would sink the Chinese ship that sank one of our ships just to make a statement. As I said, actions speak louder than words. There are times, like the scenario you drew, that you have to crack the whip in order to knock some sense into the Chinese. I beg to disagree ... you are changing the facts of the scenario I painted. RP patrol saw the Chinese fishing vessel in the area approach it. The Chinese patrol vessel noticed the incident, went to the area also. Misunderstanding followed. China fired a warning shot, RP did nudge, China fired another shot this time aimed at the vessel, a crossfire followed. RP lost the scuffle as their vessel sank. No further Chinese military aggression followed.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246); "> Again that was your opinion, but the MDT dictates that any armed attack should be reported. You are putting your opinion above the MDT of which you yourself said was the basis of your opinion. Highly irregular to cite it as the basis and yet disregard some that run counter to your stand. Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 This is Article IV: If you understood it thoroughly, it also states "all measures taken as a result thereof". If the US sinks the the Chinese ship, then it will have to report the sinking to the UN Security Council. Well again I beg to disagree with your interpretation ... all measures here would most likely refer to a "retaliation in defense" rather than a retaliation after the incident of which you painted. Remember again the scenario, NO MORE AGGRESSION AFTER. And yet the US joining the RP to sink China's ship in "RETALIATION" comes after the incident which was the basis for this discussion. Now since this is already about the UN Sec Council, you would have gotten a better picture if you read about the UN Charter ... </h3><h3 style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 3px 0px; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 102); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; ">Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Why would you use my argument? Isn't your opinion the Chinese will retaliate? You drew the scenario of the Chinese sinking our ship and in this scenario, diplomacy went down the drain. Why would the US even extend niceties to a country which attacked a key ally in the Asia-Pacific and which its own president rebuked for failing to uphold international norms? What Obama said that China is not upholding international norms is a warning of sorts and not just an empty statement. There was an article that the US is sending more of its warships to the area which is an indication that Obama means business. Don't get confused ... Yes my opinion is that the Chinese will retaliate ... but that is on the presumption that the US will join the fray and sink one of their ship right? In this scenario, I said the Chinese won't dare attack if the US ships just station in front of the RP ships to defend from any aggression. Really? What did I change? Didn't you say that RP lost the scuffle as their vessel sank? The thing is the vessel sank and that's what I said in my post. bear in mind as I posted that there was a warning shot fired. The RP side did not back off the Chinese fired a shot aimed at the RP ship and a CROSSFIRE FOLLOWED. pertinent facts when you talk about diplomacy ... they are already in the middle of a crossfire when the ship sank. It could have gone eitherway right? so why talk about Chinese diplomacy? The Phil side if they are diplomatic to could have back off. Bottomline diplomacy should be bilateral rather than unilateral. Why would you use my argument? Isn't your opinion the Chinese will retaliate? You drew the scenario of the Chinese sinking our ship and in this scenario, diplomacy went down the drain. Why would the US even extend niceties to a country which attacked a key ally in the Asia-Pacific and which its own president rebuked for failing to uphold international norms? What Obama said that China is not upholding international norms is a warning of sorts and not just an empty statement. There was an article that the US is sending more of its warships to the area which is an indication that Obama means business. Don't get confused ... Yes my opinion is that the Chinese will retaliate ... but that is on the presumption that the US will join the fray and sink one of their ship right? In this scenario, I said the Chinese won't dare attack if the US ships just station in front of the RP ships to defend from any aggression. Really? What did I change? Didn't you say that RP lost the scuffle as their vessel sank? The thing is the vessel sank and that's what I said in my post. bear in mind as I posted that there was a warning shot fired. The RP side did not back off the Chinese fired a shot aimed at the RP ship and a CROSSFIRE FOLLOWED. pertinent facts when you talk about diplomacy ... they are already in the middle of a crossfire when the ship sank. It could have gone eitherway right? so why talk about Chinese diplomacy? The Phil side if they are diplomatic to could have back off. Bottomline diplomacy should be bilateral rather than unilateral. Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Why would the US even extend niceties to a country which attacked a key ally in the Asia-Pacific and which its own president rebuked for failing to uphold international norms? What Obama said that China is not upholding international norms is a warning of sorts and not just an empty statement. There was an article that the US is sending more of its warships to the area which is an indication that Obama means business. Why would the US extend "niceties"? Plain and simple ... 1. To avoid escalating this into a "WAR", there is such a thing called "maximum tolerance" of which you may deemed as "niceties" 2. To adhere to the Charter of the UN one of which clearly states " All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." Let us separate FACTS from OPINIONS: Obama said China is not upholding norms is a FACT ... "this is a warning of sorts and not just an empty statement" is your OPINION and still remains to be seen unless you can claim to read his mind when he made that statement. US sending more ships to the area is a FACT ... "which is an indication that OBAMA means business" is your OPINION that will not guarantee that indeed the US will join the fray and put to reality the picture you painted. IN OTHER WORDS YOU CONTINUE TO DEFEND YOUR BELIEF WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU ALREADY SAID "YOU AGREE TO DISAGREE"...Aren't we going in circles with this issue you raise? Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) 1339070977[/url]' post='8230770']This is your scenario. My scenario is that the US will sink the Chinese ship that sank the BRP ship. I agree to disagree with you here. Well you said it a couple of times that You agree to disagree and yet comes out with several issues/questions after. Am just giving in to your queries.And the issue u raised here pertains to how the US can defend RP without joining the fray so why are you stating your stand again? You're going in circles. 1339070713[/url]' post='8230760']You drew up a scenario. I gave you my take on what would happen. Well, if you disagree with my interpretation, then go ahead. I'm not forcing you to take as doctrine my interpretation. Well you can refute what I said if you think there is anything wrong in my interpretation specially since I referred to the MDT and something that came from the UN Charter. Like you said where did you say that your opinion won't counter with the rights and obligations of the charter of the UN. Edited June 7, 2012 by fatchubs Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 1339070977[/url]' post='8230770']This is your scenario. My scenario is that the US will sink the Chinese ship that sank the BRP ship. I agree to disagree with you here. Well you said it a couple of times that You agree to disagree and yet comes out with several issues/questions after. Am just giving in to your queries. 1339070713[/url]' post='8230760']You drew up a scenario. I gave you my take on what would happen. Well, if you disagree with my interpretation, then go ahead. I'm not forcing you to take as doctrine my interpretation. Well you can refute what I said if you think there is anything wrong in my interpretation specially since I referred to the MDT and something that came from the UN Charter. Like you said where did you say that your opinion won't counter with the rights and obligations of the charter of the UN. Quote Link to comment
fatchubs Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 1339070486[/url]' post='8230756']Why? Did I say or imply otherwise? Care to clarify your post? What are you referring to which you're asking " did u say or impaled"? Quote Link to comment
camiar Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 It would be naive for all of us to argue on whatever response the US will make to any incident involving PHL-China territorial disputes. What we would be certain though, is that the US will act according to what is best for its own interest. What we Filipinos should accept is that defending our sovereignity is our own fight. We should welcome help from others, but it still remains our own. I feel annoyed when some posters imply that in case of armed attack, the US should automatically take over the situation and lead our fight. Yet it seems that even Noynoy think along the same line, even bringing the UK into it. So what should we do instead? Keep our mouth shut. Build up our own strength to protect our territory. So far the Philippine Navy and the Coast Guard are doing the right thing : Grey-on-grey, White-on-white. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.