黄岩岛-中国固有领土 is ChiCom for "Huangyan Island - China's inherent territory"
yitbos
Posted on 04/10/2012 10:31:25 PM PDT by Nachum
Manila, Philippines - The Philippines said its largest warship was engaged in a tense standoff with Chinese surveillance vessels Wednesday at a disputed South China Sea shoal, after the ship attempted to arrest Chinese fishermen but was blocked by the surveillance craft. Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario summoned Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing to resolve the dangerous impasse diplomatically. Del Rosario's office said in a statement that the Scarborough Shoal "is an integral part of Philippine territory" and Filipino authorities would assert sovereignty over the offshore area.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
That is one interesting tango. The Philiphines vs China. Of course I hope Obama issues a statement in defense of the Philiphines
Of course I hope Obama issues a statement in defense of the Philiphines
LOL
黄岩岛-中国固有领土 is ChiCom for "Huangyan Island - China's inherent territory"
yitbos
The whole world knows it. The down side is, that just makes him dangerous to us all. Everyone, including the Chinese.
LOL LOL ...oh I needed a laugh tonight and this did the trick. Just the visual
It is pretty well armed.
Obama is a freakin ‘Joke’.
You’re absolutely right. No one respects the creepy, evil bastard.
But with only a 76mm main gun, a 25mm mk-38, and some fifty cals, along with a light patrol chopper, she will be in trouble if any modern frigate with even halfway decent SSMs comes against her.
Luckily they are currently pitted against two unarmed (but relatively modern) Chinese Marine Surveillance vessels, an arm of their Coast Guard
Filipinos are stubbornly, fiercely nationalistic. I was visiting Manila last December, and I overheard a PNP (Philippine National Police) captain say they will fight the Chinese even if armed only with — slingshots!
In the ‘70’s they had the PC (Phillipine Constabulary). Is this the same as PNP? I trained Army and PC’s but never ran across PNP.
My initial reaction to this hope is to ask, why?
That is not to say that America should not be wary of Chinese ambitions, especially in the potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands area. That is not to say that America does not have an interest in protecting surrounding nations from Chinese intimidation.
It is to say that, given America's precarious fiscal situation, is it prudent for us to take up the defense of the Philippines? Recall that the Philippines might have had the American Navy right there for them had they not kicked us out of Subic Bay. Do we owe them anything at this point? If there is no moral duty, then it seems to me the first question for this thread is:
What is in the national interest of the United States?
Do we need the Spratly Islands oil? Probably not. Will oil be withheld from the markets of the world if the Chinese take over these petroleum fields? No, the Chinese will satisfy their demands there and not go into the market and compete for oil produced elsewhere.
Have the Philippines contributed troops to Iraq? Afghanistan? Do Filipino politicians run for office by running against America?
If we are to expose the United States to conflict with the world's most populous nation, the world's second-largest economy, armed with nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, are we prepared for the costs? What about our market for our goods in China? Can we afford to maintain a fleet in this area and still have carriers left over for the Persian Gulf and the other oceans of the world? Do we want to risk carriers to destruction by Chinese missiles which is a threat of entirely greater dimension than the threat from Iran to those carriers stationed near the Persian Gulf?
Do we want to issue ultimata to China before we have thought these things through?
These questions have nothing to do with the fecklessness of Obama, they have to do with facing the reality of a wasting America in a dangerous world in which we have ever fewer assets with which to combat ever strengthening adversaries.
It has to do with demonstrating to allies that there is a price to be paid for rejecting America. We have precious few allies upon which we can rely and those few allies are well advised to consider whether they can truly rely on an America led by Barack Obama. This is not rectified by willy-nilly juxtaposing ourselves against China for a feckless ally in a quarrel in which we have no direct interest. Let the Philippines pay their dues to us first.
Above all, let us consider our national interests seriously before we reflexively resort to bombast.
PC’s were real bad a$$e$. In the 60’s, they maintained peace during elections by patrolling the streets in jeeps with a .50 cal “Ma Duece” mounted. No questions asked.
Everything you say is true, but the how do you send a message to the Chinese you are going to stand up to them? Hitler was ignored until he could be no longer be ignored. You have a bully here, when do you hit him in the nose and let him know he’s in for a fight if he keeps on grabbing things that don’t belong to him?
It is odd that in England declined to go to war in defense of Czechoslovakia in a place where there were geographic and strategic defenses against Hitler when England might actually have won but went to war against Hitler on behalf of Poland when Germany was probably relatively stronger at a place, Poland, which was indefensible. History tells us that Hitler might have been overthrown by his own generals had the Allies reacted with force on behalf of Czechoslovakia. Certainly that was true respecting the Saarland.
So England set up a trigger in Poland which committed it to war and took the initiative out of its own hands by its own policy of pusillanimity and appeasement. But pusillanimity and appeasement are the results of a lack of clear thinking and courage. Clear thinking implies a clear understanding of one's national interests and courage implies assuming those risks on behalf of that interest which are prudent and moral.
I do not believe China will be deterred in the slightest by empty bluster. I don't think there's anything that Obama can say which will influence China, certainly not in the long run,-and China always thinks in the long run- because he has forfeited international respect among the principal players, although he seems to have retained it to some degree here in Europe on the street.
Clearly you’d want to line up some allies before standing up to China and make sure your own people are behind you. I rather America actually declared ISLAM the enemy of the moment myself rather than dancing around the issue with silly notions like “The war on terror”. Islamic nations are crazy enough to actually use nukes. You might even get China to join in.
I’m thinkin’: SEALS. midnight. C4. No more dispute.
In reality, this is part of the continuous Chinese power grab. They claim everything up to the shores of the countries that ring the South China Sea.
Why has Obama antagonized our natural allies against both China and militant Islam? Because he despises the West, not just America. I think D'Saesa had a great degree of truth in his analysis of Obama describing him as an anti-colonialist. We know, or at least have strong reason to believe, that Obama hates Britain. Why not Belgian for their colonialization in the Congo, or France for their less than enlightened colonies in Africa?
Anticolonialism has long been standard issue for Marxists and on that count alone Europe would qualify to be despised by Obama.
But Obama has no ideological prejudice against either Iran or China, quite the contrary. Yet, he will have reason to find his personal interests antagonistic to China and Iran because their advancement ultimately threatens Obama's personal power and Iran is a threat to the kind of ideology that Obama represents. Eventually communism and Islam must fight to the death. I think there is a great deal of ambiguity on Obama's part as a result. I think the same analysis applies to Islam as a ideology in Obama's thinking.
So we have administration setting foreign policy for what is probably an incoherent and internally inconsistent ideology rather than a realistic calculation of America's national interests and certainly rather than standard issue American patriotism .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.