Brave chaps these fellows.
That means they are thumbing their nose at the Chinese about wanting to have a 'small war' against Philippines (as given in a post earlier) and they find that the PRC is but paper tigers and full of hollow war cries.
In short, China is a joke?
Maybe they are right!
Last edited by Ray; 05-12-2012 at 09:06 AM.
Any links?Several hundred indicates that the perception of threat isn't very high. You can find several hundred protestors waving flags and placards outside the US embassy on a regular basis, often demanding termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement and military exercises.
At least to the Filipino newspapers?
It seems that the Govt is taking the protests seriously that it will sour relations or else why mention about it if it was routine?
“We hope our Chinese friends will not take this as a provocative action on the part of the Philippine government. This [protest] is a private initiative by private citizens,” she said on government-run dzRB radio.
She added the Philippine side had been taking steps to de-escalate the tension and continue to pursue diplomatic solution to the situation.
On the other hand, she said she cannot understand why the Chinese side finds it “weird” to take the matter to international arbitration.
She said the Chinese side has not been receptive to efforts to bring the matter to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...erritorial-row
US muscling up in Asia-Pacific, sends new warship to Singapore, Philippines
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The first in a new class of US Navy combat ships will be sent to Singapore next year for a 10-month deployment, an official said Thursday, as the US moves to expand its Asia-Pacific presence.
"The USS Freedom will deploy to Singapore for 10 months in spring 2013," Navy Lieutenant Katie Cerezo said in an email to AFP.
The ship belongs to a new class of "littoral combat ships" -- smaller, surface vessels intended for operations close to shore and able to deploy quickly to crises that are part of a US strategy focusing on the Asia-Pacific.
The Navy said its force would eventually be equipped with 55 warships of this type, four of which could be deployed in Singapore.
The ships are meant to be deployed on a rotational basis and not based in Singapore, where the US military already operates a small post that assists in logistics and exercises for forces in Southeast Asia.
China's defense ministry has been scornful over increased American military activity in the region, saying it is proof of a "Cold War mentality" from Washington.
The United States is also expected to step up deployments to the Philippines and Thailand as part of its Asia-Pacific strategy.
http://www.philippinenews.com/latest...ilippines.html
We can’t turn tail and run
By: Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:49 pm | Friday, May 11th, 2012
And to the Chinese government, we live in fantasy land, because we are mistaking its “forbearance” for “timidity.” At the same time, its story of being harassed, robbed, and pressed into a corner, played tricks on, detained, is an objective, factual account.
China calls it Huangyan Island. We call it Bajo de Masinloc. We say that the area has been delineated as Philippine territory in Spanish maps dating to the 17th century. China says that this same area has been delineated as its territory in its maps dated several centuries ago.
But what about the fact that Bajo de Masinloc/Huangyan is only something like 230 kilometers away from Zambales while it is 1,200 km from the nearest major Chinese land mass? Only think of how long it would have taken Chinese boats several hundred years ago to go to and from the area. Tiny boats. No refrigeration. What would be the point of using the place as fishing grounds? No one has given a satisfactory reason.
But isn’t Huangyan, at a distance of 1,200 km from China, outside of its exclusive economic zone (200 miles or 320 km), while it is well within that of the Philippines, as we claim?
Not to China, which thinks that our territorial claim is “untenable” because, quoting from the director of the China Institute for Marine Affairs under State Oceanic Administration, “there is no such principle in international law that determines territorial ownership by geographic distance, and this theory based on geographic distance … has no basis in international law and judicial practice.” And if the Philippines’ theory was upheld, he says, the world map would be totally redrawn.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/28553/we...n-tail-and-runSome news from Philippines.Loida Lewis to China: ‘You’re shameless’
NEW YORK—Edwin Josue may be Filipino-Chinese, but during Friday’s protest rally against China, he was “first and foremost” a Filipino...
Anti-China rallies were held simultaneously in the Philippines, New York, Washington D.C. and other cities around the world where Filipinos have a major presence. The rallies called on China to leave the Philippine waters and stop “bullying” the country....
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/366...eless%E2%80%99
Does not appear to be that the protest is something routine by rabble rouser.
It appears that Filipinos world wide are inflamed!
Some may feel otherwise.
Last edited by Ray; 05-12-2012 at 09:26 AM.
raissa robles
inside Philippine politics and beyond
Is China after the Philippines' oil & gas fields?
May 1, 2012 · 239 Comments
Exclusive
By Raïssa Robles
http://raissarobles.com/2012/05/01/i...il-gas-fields/
http://raissarobles.com/2012/05/01/i...il-gas-fields/
**************
How about that?
The cobwebs over the eyes seem to be falling apart.
Surprising that those who live there are not aware.
If this is true, then China is a real slippery fox couching their horrid hegemonic intentions with false piety!
Last edited by Ray; 05-12-2012 at 09:55 AM.
I'm sure Google would give you links to coverage of protests accompanying the start of the recent Balikatan exercise... the protests are as much an annual ritual as the exercise. In general a protest at the US Embassy is hardly newsworthy. Embassy staff used to joke about whether or not the protestors would outnumber the visa applicants on any given day.
Whether or not they were organized by rabble rousers, a turnout of only a few hundred shows tepid support at best and lack of commitment by organized political groups. Of course journalist, academics, and politicians are waxing eloquent, but the populace at large doesn't seem all that reactive, judging from the turnout.
The LCS deployment to Sin is old news, been planned for a long time.
Of course everyone's aware of Malampaya and the surrounding potential gas blocks. Not long back I posted a piece about a Philippine company negotiating for an exploration joint venture with Chinese companies.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
In the interests of knowing what is normal and what isn't, which you would know and I don't; have there been protests like this against Red China before and how often?Originally Posted by Dayuhan
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Those links were from Op Eds and from Filipino newspapers.
Have not understood.In general a protest at the US Embassy is hardly newsworthy. Embassy staff used to joke about whether or not the protestors would outnumber the visa applicants on any given day.
The protests are not against the US.
The protests are against the Chinese.
I presume the individuals who wrote about the protest against the Chinese are adequately aware of what is happening in their country. And the Editors in Philippines should be fairly responsible people. It is obvious that the protest has indeed caused concern, or else why an op ed if it were mere routine?
Would they not know what they are writing about or the Editors not know what is published in their papers and if that is relevant or not?
Now, if the newspapers published such articles, surely they are taking these protest seriously, even though you opine that they are but routine and immaterial.
Last edited by Ray; 05-13-2012 at 06:19 AM.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-denies-p...GFnZQ--;_ylv=3China has denied it is increasing combat readiness in response to a territorial row with the Philippines over a disputed shoal in the South China Sea.
China's defence ministry denied military units were getting ready for war, despite warnings in state media that China is prepared to fight to end the stand-off.
"Reports that the Guangzhou military region, the South China Sea fleet and other units have entered a state of war preparedness are untrue," the ministry said in a brief statement on its website Friday.
The Guangzhou military region in southern China has responsibility for the area.
It gave no source for the reports, but rumours on the Internet say China has ordered some military units up to level two of its four-level scale of war preparedness, one notch from the top which indicates full readiness.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
China is a peaceful nation - Peaceful Rise.
The weaponry is but for their own defence.
Forays with hegemonic intent into SCS is but only a peaceful act.
Others are merely misunderstanding the peaceful intent.
The above is what one will hear always from Red China.
While Red China controls everything that happens in China, would it be too much to believe that they have a free press where the media publishes belligerent news without official sanction or their military leaders propound aggressive thoughts that have no official Nelson's Eye?
If so, I am mistaken!
And China has no hegemonic intent at all. All for the sake of Peace!
And it is the US that is misrepresenting the Peaceful intent of China and being belligerent!
Last edited by Ray; 05-13-2012 at 05:36 PM.
Well, to be fair - the U.S. is among the last countries in the world with the moral high ground in regard to bellicosity accusations.
The point is that if you're going to spin a few hundred demonstrators at a Chinese embassy into a statement that Filipinos generically are up in arms against China, you'd also have to conclude that Filipinos generically are irate at the US, since demonstrations of similar size routinely occur outside the US embassy.
I'd say both conclusions would be wrong. Drawing only a few hundred people to a protest in a city the size of Manila is an indication that the cause has little real traction with the populace, and I don't think the Filipinos generically are all that fired up about either issue. Given the social media buzz I'd have expected the turnout to be higher, but I guess complaining on Facebook is easier than going out in the street on a hot day.
Listening to the domestic discourse, there's certainly a sense of irritation at the intrusions, and certainly a sense of frustration at being so obviously unable to do anything about them. You don't get any sense of fear, though: there's nothing to indicate that people are afraid of being "gobbled up" by China, as some here have suggested.
As far as the peaceful rise goes, I'd guess the Chinese are neither as benevolent as they claim to be nor as malevolent as their detractors claim them to be. The same might be said of others.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
...that, coming from the German.Well, to be fair - the U.S. is among the last countries in the world with the moral high ground in regard to bellicosity accusations.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
I wouldn't know about Philippines, but in India and in the countries I have been to, op eds and editorials are not based on the humdrum.
But if you say that the op eds and editorial from Philippines I have appended on those demonstrations are highlighting the mundane and there is no news of import to comment on in the Philippines, so be it!
Well, our last war of aggression lies 13 years in the past, the U.S.'s last one only 9 years....that, coming from the German.
Besides; don't confuse an individual and his/her nationality. Two different things.
I'm the "No wars of choice!" guy here.
Op-eds and editorials are based on whatever is in the news at the time. They are not an indicator of public opinion, nor do they necessarily involve matters of great import. How many of us remember what the op-ed and editorial writers were ranting about a year ago at this time?
I wouldn't say there's nothing of any importance in all this, but I think you're seriously exaggerating both the importance and the degree of public concern.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/wo...r.html?_r=2&hpWASHINGTON — China is pressing a long-range modernization of its military, part of a strategy aimed at maximizing its leverage over Taiwan, extending its influence farther abroad, but avoiding conflict around its borders or with the United States, the Pentagon said on Friday in an annual report to Congress.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
While doing research on rising powers, spheres of influence and national interests (something I wish the policy and think-tank types in DC would spend a little more time thinkng about...), I ran across this gem of an article.
IMO, a great deal of wisdom here:
http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...6561?page=show
A couple of exerpts:
"We are determined to try to sustain the global supremacy handed to us by Russia’s involuntary default on its Cold War contest with us. In the Asia-Pacific region, this means "full-spectrum dominance" up to China’s twelve-mile limit. In effect, having assumed the mission of defending the global commons against all comers, we have decided to treat the globe beyond the borders of Russia and China as an American sphere of influence in which we hold sway and all others defer to our views of what is and is not permissible."
and
"Worse, the logic of the sort of universal sphere of influence we aspire to administer requires us to treat the growth of others' capabilities relative to our own as direct threats to our hegemony. This means we must match any and all improvements in foreign military power with additions to our own. It is why our military-related expenditures have grown to exceed those of the rest of the world combined. There is simply no way that such a militaristic approach to national security is affordable in the long term, no matter how much it may delight defense contractors."
This needs to be nailed to front door at PACOM. (Yes, I know that door is made of glass, but "in case of emergency, break glass.")
Last edited by Bob's World; 05-20-2012 at 12:06 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
America's Permanent War Agenda
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman010310.htm
I wonder how far will Americans agree with this?
Just wanted to know the opinions on something I am researching.
Reading it, I wondered if it were from George Orwell's '1984', especially the claim in the book - War is Peace.
During Bush' time when the war rhetoric was high, none felt that going to war was immoral and yet today, there appears to be a sizable group that are strong votaries of Peace.
How is it that in such a short time, the US is jettisoning the belief that they so fervently held during the Bush period, where it was so intense that to not wear a US lapel pin was taken as anti USA!
Last edited by Ray; 06-03-2012 at 03:44 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks