South China/West Philippine Sea

[camiar]

Nope. I don't. Have you been practicing it? After all, it was you who posted it. This was probably what was on your mind when you thought of engaging the Chinese in warfare without the US.

Then you and your "realistic" friends better start practicing. Don't worry about those of us living in dreamworlds, we may be already dead by the time the almighty Chinese reaches your hiding hole.

[camiar]

Speaking of inconsistency, take a look at yourself in the mirror before throwing allegations that I'm inconsistent:

We also know that we have our ASEAN neighbors and US Mutual Defense Treaty to go back on if ever the Chinese would be so stupid to go to a shooting war with us. We should react calmly, quietly and with dignity.-Diba ikaw nagsabi nyan camiar?

Yet in another post, you say this-You really believe the US will fight our wars for us? Sure they will give us military hardware and intelligence support, but to think that they will act like our personal body guards and fight in our place? You're so naive.

You're a joke.

By the way, Tom Clancy has fact-based books and not just novels.

Yes I said it. And you didn't understand.

 

I talk about behaving with dignified calm when there's no fighting yet. Then do your duty without complain if the shooting starts because ultimately, it is left to us alone, not our neighbors and friends, to defend and fight for ourselves. I would be willing to use whatever I can to fight the enemy if that situation comes. It is our duty to defend our freedom and and our families' safety no matter how strong our enemies are. During the Roman period, the Israelis fought with spears, swords and rocks at Masada against the romans' much more superior ballistas and trebuchets, and even committed suicide to deny the Romans the pleasure of having them surrender. Today, even the Palestinian children hurl rocks at the Israeli soldiers. They have a sense of duty to fight the enemy, no matter how futile it seems. Of course, "realistic" people like you would rather have somebody else do the fighting for them, or grovel and side with the enemy.

 

So Tom Clancy writes novels based on facts. Do I have to tell you that they still are fiction based on facts? I just did. Tom Clancy writes books for the Americans to feel good about their Military. So, I see you've been reading his book on SSNs. In that book he portrays Filipino pilots as drunk, womanizing slobs piloting delapidated hand-me-down fighter jets; Subic Naval base as a rotting port, neglected years after the Americans left, and the Filipino President and politicians as leftist traitors who would sell the country out in the name of their communist ideals. And you believed that! That's probably why you shared his disdain of Filipinos for pushing the US Navy out of Subic.

 

Armchair strategists. We get the likes of you a dime a dozen.

Edited July 18, 2011 by camiar

[jopoc]

Really? I didn't know I implied something like what you've been alleging. Can you point it out?

 

i already highlighted the portion i was referring to.

yes, you did imply that we will be safe from being crushed/destroyed/defeated (which was your concern if the americans will not help us, hence, you said that we need not to worry if the americans will be at our side).

 

denial mode ka na ba na yun ang ibig mong sabihin?

 

 

 

It's not really my problem if you can't comprehend and put two and two together. You're entitled to your opinion that "palusot" ako no matter how warped it is.

 

Really? What made you say I lack basis?

 

Whoever said anything about commitment? Did the US commit anything at all when Iraq invaded Kuwait? I don't think the US would commit to anything unless war has already begun.

 

Basis? Haha! Why? What do you think the US will use against Chinese subs? The US could also use destroyers but a hunter-killer would be more appropriate when engaging a Chinese sub. Again, what do you think will the US use against Chinese subs?

 

 

 

ok, if you got basis, then show me any proof such as press release/official statement, etc. from the US on what weapons/vessels/submarines/planes they will be using if they go to war with us against china.

 

show me any concrete proof (not reasons) that US will be bring hunter subs to the spratlys.

[jopoc]

Really? I didn't know I implied something like what you've been alleging. Can you point it out?

 

i already highlighted the portion i was referring to.

yes, you did imply that we will be safe from being crushed/destroyed/defeated (which was your concern if the americans will not help us, hence, you said that we need not to worry if the americans will be at our side).

 

denial mode ka na ba na yun ang ibig mong sabihin?

 

 

 

It's not really my problem if you can't comprehend and put two and two together. You're entitled to your opinion that "palusot" ako no matter how warped it is.

 

Really? What made you say I lack basis?

 

Whoever said anything about commitment? Did the US commit anything at all when Iraq invaded Kuwait? I don't think the US would commit to anything unless war has already begun.

 

Basis? Haha! Why? What do you think the US will use against Chinese subs? The US could also use destroyers but a hunter-killer would be more appropriate when engaging a Chinese sub. Again, what do you think will the US use against Chinese subs?

 

 

 

ok, if you got basis, then show me any proof such as press release/official statement, etc. from the US on what weapons/vessels/submarines/planes they will be using if they go to war with us against china.

 

show me any concrete FACTUAL proof (not reasons) that US will be bring hunter subs to the spratlys.

[jopoc]

Hahahaha! I almost fell off my seat reading this post. Again, it isn't my problem if you can't put two and two together.

 

Using hunter-killers and perhaps destroyers to counter Chinese subs is my opinion and if you're too dense to get it, it ain't my problem.

 

you almost fell off your seat because that is the only way for you to ran away from me... cornered ka nanaman sa debate, as usual.

 

good thing you admitted that your arguments are only based on your opinions (more of a guess to me, check your dictionary on the difference between an opinion and a guess ), and not on facts. it only shows how weak your arguments are.

 

 

 

You didn't answer my question. What do you think the US will use against Chinese subs? Patrol boats ba?

 

 

i dont know. it could be anything from sending us pea shooters to nuclear weapons. i am not obama to say what the US will be sending.

unlike you, i dont make opinions without any factual basis.

 

 

hindi ko ugali namag-argue gamit ay HULA.

Edited July 18, 2011 by jopoc

[lomex32]

How about arguing about his feeling, wishful thinking or his dreams ?

 

 

Lets make it simple. It will result to war when diplomacy fails.

 

you almost fell off your seat because that is the only way for you to ran away from me... cornered ka nanaman sa debate, as usual.

 

hindi ko ugali namag-argue gamit ay HULA.

[jopoc]

Being delusional is not really against the rules of this forum. So go ahead, you're doing fine being delusional. You've been saying cornered ako but you can't even give me an answer what the US will use against Chinese subs. You're good at making ad hominem statements yet when asked about what the US will use against Chinese subs, you avoid it. Tsk tsk. Are you experiencing foot in mouth syndrome again?

 

 

 

you must not have read the second part of my post. where i made a clear answer to your query.

 

 

i dont know. it could be anything from sending us pea shooters to nuclear weapons. i am not obama to say what the US will be sending.

unlike you, i dont make opinions without any factual basis.

 

hindi ko ugali namag-argue gamit ay HULA.

 

 

 

i only argue using FACTS. my opinions are based on FACTS, not on an opinion, much less a guess.

 

 

so please, use FACTS and not opinions (or guesses) in proving your point.

 

anything else to say, my dear friend before we end this discussion?

Edited July 18, 2011 by jopoc

[jopoc]

Hula? One of the functions of a hunter-killer Virginia/Los Angeles class submarine is to engage other hostile submarines so tell me paano ako nanghula?

 

How could I have a factual basis for this when the Chinese haven't attacked us in the Spratlys which would prompt the US to enforce the mutual defense treaty? Unless the US wants China to have the upper hand on the naval side of a potential US/RP-China Spratly war, it would use its Ohio class submarines (trident missile submarines) and Los Angeles/Virginia class submarines.

 

 

nanghuhula ka na gagamitin ang (hindi ko sinabi na hinuhulaan mong meron) Virgina/los angeles class submarines dahil, as you said, "Chinese haven't attacked us in the Spratlys"

 

kaya tama ako na hinuhulaan mo lang kung anong submarines/armas/pwersa ang gagamitin ng US laban sa china kung sumali sila sa gyera, di po ba?

[jopoc]

I was basing my statement on the function of a hunter-killer submarine so may factual basis yung sinabi ko na gagamitin ng US ang hunter-killers nila laban sa Chinese subs. What part of that didn't you understand?

 

It seems to me you have a hard time comprehending what I'm saying but it's just simple. A US hunter-killer submarine is an appropriate counter for a Chinese sub. Nahirapan ka bang intindihin to?

 

 

 

you are just guessing that the US will use a hunter-killer submarine because it is "an appropriate counter" for a chinese sub. am i correct?

 

 

or, are you 100% sure that the US will use hunter-killer subs against the chinese?

[jopoc]

I am not guessing. In a war, you use all your military resources to better your chances of victory. I was basing my statement on the use of a hunter-killer and one of its primary functions is to attack enemy subs.

 

 

 

saan mo naman natutunan yan, general?

dadalhin din ba ng US ang homeland security nila sa pinas?

pull out ba ng mga sundalo sa afghanistan, iraq at libya then punta sila spratlys? sabi mo kasi... ALL.

 

 

Eh ang china, lahat ng red guards pupunta ng spratlys?

sabi mo kasi USE OF ALL OF THE MILITARY RESOURCES.

Edited July 18, 2011 by jopoc

[jopoc]

I'll qualify it since you're having trouble understanding and taking it literally. All military resources available. Just so you know, China's armed forces is no joke. Namimilosopo ka na lang, sablay pa. Now why would the US pull out all its forces in Afghanistan and Iraq? This only shows how warped your thinking is. You evidently took what I said literally which is why I qualified it to make an obtuse person like you understand. Let me guess, your next post will be something like "nagpapalusot ka naman". Again, I'm just qualifying what I said since you're having a difficult time comprehending. Since you're in the dark as to what the US will do, let me give you a preview of what the US will do. In the event of imminent war with China in the Spratlys, the US will send a super carrier, probably the Nimitz class USS George Washington, to the vicinity of the Spratlys to project force. Now the George Washington will be escorted by its battle group composed of destroyers, cruisers and hunter-killers. So definitely, hunter-killers will be used. Nagets mo na ba or nahirapan kang intindihin?

 

 

1. what do you mean by "ALL"? iba ba ang definition ng dictionary mo?

 

malinaw na malinaw sabi mo, ALL. right?

 

 

2. so, you are giving me a PREVIEW of what the US will do.... is that a GUESS or are you OBAMA (or maybe a US general) to know what the US will be sending?

 

 

 

i will do you a favor and save you from further embarassment. so unless you are obama or a US general, then obviously your "preview" is a mere guesswork (or a delusion, your favorite word). there is no point in arguing further with a person who argues based on guesswork and has his own definition of the word "ALL".

 

para hindi na rin magreklamo sa atin si ryuji, at para hindi rin magalit si bossing bandit at isara ang thread na ito, i am ending this discusssion with you.

 

 

alam ko na hindi ka papayag na hindi ikaw ang may last say, so post na.

Edited July 18, 2011 by jopoc

[camiar]

Bro, a lot has change after the Korean war. China had the man power but lacks the technology and equipment during the 1950s. Most of their equipment (tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and artillery) were "donated" by Russia. Now, they have the man power, technology and equipment. They will surely bomb us back to the stone age.

 

We may get upper hand in infantry warfare but winning a war is about controlling land, sea, and air.

 

I was not talking about infantry warfare. The issue is about strategy and tactics.

 

I was pointing out that Filipino soldiers used small-unit tactics against the overwhelming number of Chinese and won. Similar doctrine can be used not just in infantry warfare, but with naval and aerial combat as well.

 

In the Falklands war, the Argentinians sunk two modern British destroyers using small-unit aerial tactics. Against a major military power like UK, the Argentinians did fairly well.

 

It's not always true that a bigger military power like the Chinese can win a battle everytime with a smaller force like the Philippines, especially if the Philippines will be defending and the Chinese will be attacking.

Edited July 20, 2011 by camiar

[red60]

Winning the war? Why would you even plan on getting into it?

 

There are lots of ways we can deter China from using its military advantage to take over the Kalayaan Island. One way is to grovel submissively to the Chinese.

During the Korean War, a platoon of Filipinos attacked a Chinese regiment holding a strategic hill position. Our soldiers divided themselves into four squads, and made probing attacks on the Chinese defense lines. attacking, withdrawing and moving over to the next segment of the Chinese defense lines. They did this over and over every night for several days. As reports of the "waves" of attack reach the command post, the Chinese thought they were being attacked by a huge army. They withdraw soon afterwards and the Filipinos took over the hill.

 

Platoon vs. Regiment. That was bravado. And smart fighting. That piece of history would never have happened if inverbrass was there.

 

I was not talking about infantry warfare. The issue is about strategy and tactics.

 

I was pointing out that Filipino soldiers used small-unit tactics against the overwhelming number of Chinese and won. Similar doctrine can be used not just in infantry warfare, but with naval and aerial combat as well.

 

In the Falklands war, the Argentinians sunk two modern British destroyers using small-unit aerial tactics. Against a major military power like UK, the Argentinians did fairly well.

 

It's not always true that a bigger military power like the Chinese can win a battle everytime with a smaller force like the Philippines, especially if the Philippines will be defending and the Chinese will be attacking.

 

Camiar, your conclusion that we can stand up to China based on the Korean war and Falklands war proves your superficial and inadequate knowledge on the subject matter.

 

During the Korean War, the Philippines was regarded was one of the most progressive and economically stable country in Asia. This is main reason why we sent soldiers in an external conflict. Obviously this is a far cry from our present state. I agree that Filipinos have shown valor and proficiency in combat when we engaged the massive but poorly trained Chinese but we also had great support coming from the US, British, Canadian, and Turkish forces that covered land, sea and air. Based on the facts stated, the Korean War is a poor reflection of our current scenario where we are falling at the bottom in Asia. It's quite possible that we can win a few skirmishes but we'll be vulnerable without US air and sea support.

 

Falklands War? Seriously? have you tried reading about it before making it an inference on the subject matter?? Falklands War is the PERFECT reason why we should NEVER engage China in military conflict. Argentina, lost a cruiser, a submarine, 649 killed, 1068 wounded, 11,313 captured, and 75 fixed-wing aircraft. On the other hand, the British lost, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, 258 killed, 777 wounded. More importantly, Argentina SURRENDERED after 74 days. Argentina may have won a skirmish but it had lost the war. I disagree to you statement that the Argentinians did "fairly well". It was a disaster. Furthermore, the defeat in the Falklands War became the catalyst for the collapse of Argentinian government, overthrow of the dictator, and years of civil unrest. Argentina has more firepower than the Philippines and the British sent a smaller force compared to the Chinese forces currently patrolling the area. Is this how you envision the future of our country? Massive casualty, anarchy, and destruction of Filipino way of life because we chose to engage in a military conflict that we can never really win.

 

Camiar, your blind patriotism and reckless bravery is admirable but in order to survive you need to see the bigger picture. I'm not saying we sit idle and watch the Chinese takeover the Islands but we should seek other non-militaristic ways of securing the islands. I'm willing to bet that you'll be shaking, peeing and pooping your pants holding to your 50-year old M1-Garand rifle waiting for your impending death should a full military conflict arise.

Edited July 20, 2011 by red60

[artvader]

In fairness to Camiar. He was always preaching about "quiet resolve" on how to handle the Spratly's situation and what he said was to make us see that a small force can cause trouble even to a much larger army.

 

But you are also right, while we may win some skirmishes, the overall war (if it happens) will leave us devastated (if the nation survives, that is).

[jopoc]

^^^^^

 

 

kung ipapadala ba naman ng tsina ALL of the military resources nila, talagang walang laban tayo. mas marami pa ata ang red guards nila sa population ng bansa.,