Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Kalayaan, Panatag & other disputed islands; Future conflict zones?
Topic Started: Feb 2 2005, 08:00 PM (156,112 Views)
israeli
Member Avatar


RP may uphold, abrogate or suspend Spratlys deal--expert
By Jocelyn Uy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:33:00 03/14/2008


MANILA -- The Philippine government has three options to address the controversial Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) it signed with China and Vietnam in the disputed Spratly Islands, according to an expert on China relations.

Aileen Baviera, dean of the University of the Philippines’ Asian Center, said at a forum organized by the UP College of Law on Friday that the government could either abrogate the 2005 agreement, continue with it, or suspend it for a fixed period of time.

But in abrogating the JMSU, Baviera said, the Philippines would have to bear "losing face" in the eyes of Vietnam and China, which is emerging as the main engine of growth for the global economy, and risk upsetting its confidence in the Philippines.

"China cannot be ignored. It is a reality we all have to contend with," Baviera said.

She added that backing out of the tripartite agreement would give China a free hand over the potentially oil- and gas-rich Spratlys.

The JMSU, a three-year agreement that took effect in July 2005, allows the Philippine National Oil Corp. and the state oil companies of China and Vietnam to conduct a joint seismic study in disputed areas of the South China Sea. It covers the conduct of seismic tests over 142,886 square kilometers and the processing and interpretation of data gathered.

The other speakers at the forum titled "The Spratlys Sellout? The Philippine National Territory and the Continental Shelf" were Merlin Magallona, a former dean of the UP College of Law and a former foreign affairs undersecretary, Dr. Raul Pangalangan and Prof. Harry Roque Jr.

Baviera said the government could push through with the JMSU, provided that an interagency panel of independent experts would be formed to oversee its implementation.

She said this move would at least remove the suspicion that the government had pursued the purportedly unconstitutional agreement in exchange for such deals as the allegedly overpriced National Broadband Network project with China’s ZTE Corp.

"If the government were to continue the agreement, it must persuade the public of its [integrity], and the agreement must be made transparent," Baviera said.

She said forming an independent panel to oversee the execution of the JMSU could be a "damage control" measure.

The last "unsolicited advice" that Baviera dispensed to the government was to suspend the agreement for a fixed period, deal with the unresolved and brewing issues over the Philippine claim to the Spratlys, and save face later.

"It is important that we continue to wield [control] over our claimed parts of the islands," she said, adding that the government must ignore all forms of protests made by other claimants to the Spratlys.

Beijing has expressed displeasure over the passage on second reading of House Bill 3216, which includes within in the Philippines’ archipelagic baselines the Kalayaan group of islands off Palawan and Scarborough Shoal and the waters between them.

Pangalangan, a columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and a former UP law dean, said the JSMU in itself was not suspicious at all because agreements like it were encouraged by international law to prevent opposing parties "from shooting one another" and allow them to "find ways to establish cooperation."

What made the agreement "suspicious and sinister," he said, were the "Constitution shortcuts" that the government supposedly took in signing it.

Citing the 1987 Constitution that provides for the regulation of the exploitation of Philippine natural resources, Pangalangan said Malacańang had failed to report its entering into the tripartite agreement to the House of Representatives within 30 days.

"Reporting was never done, and the agreement was done away from the public and the Congress," he said.

Magallona cited the lack of transparency in the JMSU, and said the confidentiality began with the agreement itself.

For his part, Roque recalled that in 2002, the Institute of International Legal Studies of the UP Law Center exhorted President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to act on its study identifying the territories in which the Philippine continental shelf could be extended by 150 nautical miles.

He identified these territories as the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal and Benham Rise.

Roque said the study also presented evidence for submission to the United Nations to back the Philippines’ claim for an extended continental shelf, but Malacańang supposedly ignored it.


-----------


Experts say Spratlys part of RP archipelago
GMA News video
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


with things in the Spratlys heating up as time progresses, it is time for the AFP to seriously rebuild its external defense capabilities. the AFP cannot depend on S-211s and World War II-era warships in defending Philippine interests at the South China Sea against the military might of other claimant countries, namely China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
epigone
Member
[ *  *  * ]
israeli
Mar 15 2008, 04:21 AM
with things in the Spratlys heating up as time progresses, it is time for the AFP to seriously rebuild its external defense capabilities. the AFP cannot depend on S-211s and World War II-era warships in defending Philippine interests at the South China Sea against the military might of other claimant countries, namely China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

With our weak external defense capabilities, our only recourse is to hope and pray that the Conservative Party of America or the Republicans stay in power. Or else vindictive Democrats will leave us unattended like what John F. Kennedy did at the Bay of Pigs or what Hillary want of the US military which is pulling them out of Iraq. Hillary can promote universal health care, how come she cannot promote democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. Galit sa mundo ang mga Democratic gays!!
"Provocation is a valid defense against homicide"- Canadian Law on MSantor who 'cough, cough..', passes by my company room with a cup of coffee, waits for me in the bus shelter together with his friends and provoke me, and has been stalking me in forums like army.ca, navy.ca, timawa.net, militaryforums.com... He indeed is 'SEEKING DEATH' - Holy Bible.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MSantor
Member Avatar

PDFF Mod Group
epigone
Mar 15 2008, 04:26 AM
With our weak external defense capabilities, our only recourse is to hope and pray that the Conservative Party of America or the Republicans stay in power. Or else vindictive Democrats will leave us unattended like what John F. Kennedy did at the Bay of Pigs or what Hillary want of the US military which is pulling them out of Iraq. Hillary can promote universal health care, how come she cannot promote democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. Galit sa mundo ang mga Democratic gays!!

:bs:

Aah yes. The US already had 8 years under a Republican President the past 8 years and look what it got the RP- most of the US military assistance to the Philippines has been in the form of COIN-related equipment such as more hand-me-down Hueys, but nothing to help improve the EXTERNAL DEFENSE capabilities of the RP. :armyroleyes: Like MRFs or SSMs as well as warships capable of carrying those SSMs. But noooo....those items are not within the context of the current US war against terror.

To hope that the US Republican party will just help the RP improve its external defense capabilities is just pure fantasy. They will only help the RP only when it SUITS AMERICAN INTERESTS, which explains why most of the US military assistance so far has been in the form of COIN-related equipment as well as the JUSMAG personnel.

The RP needs to help itself when it comes to external defense and not depend too much on the US govt. as in the past or else the Philippines will never progress; the United States has its own multitude of internal problems such as what to do with the 12 million, mostly Mexican, illegal immigrants already in the United States. Only a Democratic candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can bring about the change that needs to happen in the United States.

Furthermore, Barack Obama intends to shift the focus of the current War against Terror from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the war is not going too good right now and where the focus of the war should have been the whole time; all this time under Bush and still the US and their allies still have not caught Bin Laden!

Obama may surely finish the job that Bush could not finish; he has pledged to actually send US troops to the region of Waziristan of Pakistan and actually find and destroy the Al Qaeda remnants and Bin Laden once and for all! Destroying Al Qaeda and Bin Laden will destroy a core motivational symbol for jihadists around the world, including those in the Southern Philippines and possibly in Indonesia with Jemaah Islamiyah- catching or killing Bin Laden once and for all will show the world that no one can get away with terrorism! That will surely cause a decline in Islamic Jihadism worldwide so that US and UN programs like USAID development projects can lift more people out of poverty, which GMA has said is one of the main catalysts for terrorism as well.

Thus, my point is that one is more likely to see such an increase in economic and developmental aid to the Philippines sponsored by such international government organizations such as the UN and US programs like USAID only under a Democratic President rather than a Republican President.

The most that the US did for foreign aid under the current Bush was to give about TEN BILLION DOLLARS in military aid to Pakistan (including those F16 fighters included in the deal mainly to please Lockheed Martin with yet another profitable deal, while doing nothing really helpful to address the festering Al Qaeda problem not only within Waziristan, but all over Pakistan), according to US Senator Joseph Biden in the November 2007 Democratic Debate on CNN.

This Waziristan-Pakistan intervention possibility is also explored in the ff. commentary link by William Arkin:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...ml?nav=rss_blog

Quote:
 

Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates
This week saw the unusual spectacle of a foreign government criticizing a U.S. presidential candidate. The government is Pakistan and the candidate is Sen. Barack Obama -- and while such criticism is rare, Obama's remarks were pretty strange, too.

Speaking at Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Obama said that, as president, he would not hesitate to order unilateral military action against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if he had intelligence information that warranted a strike. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri called his remarks "very irresponsible." Sher Afgan, minister for parliamentary affairs, said it was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election."

The relevant portion of Obama's speech is as follows:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama focused on Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan, and generally his position is that withdrawal from Iraq will facilitate a shift in counterterrorism to this part of the world and a refocus on al-Qaeda central. The United States should not "repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal."

It's an interesting reading of history -- and a strange view of U.S. foreign policy, especially for someone who is essentially arguing that America should turn its back on Iraq.

First, some history: When Mikhail Gorbachev decided to give up the Soviet fight in Afghanistan, the U.S. government was quick to abandon its efforts there. Of course one of the reasons it could walk away was that Pakistan had actually done most of the work on the ground to organize the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. Pakistan subsequently supported the Taliban, which in the mid-1990s welcomed Osama bin Laden and his Arab fighters back to the country. Afghanistan by then had returned to being a backwater in American foreign policy, as so many countries are.

I'm not defending anything about the George H.W. Bush's or Bill Clinton's priorities, but come on, Obama: Would you really have stayed in Afghanistan in 1989? Al Qaeda didn't even exist then. After Desert Storm, Bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia (where he became aghast at the U.S. military presence in the center of Islam).

So, historically speaking, it is a strange statement. The United States turns its back on countries all the time. Another way of putting it is that it sets other priorities and moves on. In fact, Obama himself is now arguing we should do the same in Iraq today. Whether he is right or wrong, the point is that right now, Iraq is just as important as Afghanistan was in 1989. We've created a mess, and turning our back on it (as much as I support an orderly withdrawal) would be foolish.

Obama says that "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan." He also says the United States must not "hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." The U.S. must "recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same."

"Substantial progress"? The phrase sounds familiar. It will just prompt a debate about whether the progress is substantial enough. That's Washington in a nutshell. In the end, Obama's perspective is a confused muddle that sounds to me a lot like the policies of the Bush administration -- and is no different than the "Bush-Cheney Lite" Obama has accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of pursuing.

I know, I know, Obama will bomb the world with American values and slay the planet with his eloquence. But as long as he fails to challenge the basic premise of U.S. national security today -- that the threat of terrorism is the only threat, and that it is so grave it demands preemptive and unilateral American action -- he is just sewing his own straitjacket.

By William M. Arkin |  August 3, 2007; 8:12 AM ET



If Obama would actually authorize such an action into Pakistan to flush out Al-Qaeda, it would prove that some US Democrats are also willing to make a "unilateral military action" that a number of them later criticized Bush for doing when he sent US forces into Iraq. Well it's good that Obama is willing to act, though Pakistan seems to be its own can of worms, as discussed before.

And here is further evidence that this plan by Obama may actually have more support than one thinks among the heavy-hitters in Washington:

Quote:
 

B) Many NATO policymakers have also become increasingly concerned about the threat posed by AQC, the Taliban, and other Salafi terrorists that are using Pakistan as a base of operations. All of the major terrorist attacks against the US and Europe starting with the 9/11 can be traced back to Pakistan. Almost all the recently foiled plots in the West can also be traced back to Pakistan, including the British Airline Plot, the shoe-bomb plot, the attacks on US military bases in Germany, and several other recently thwarted attacks. Pakistan also serves as a launching point for the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan.

C) Many American politicians, including several the Presidential candidates from both major parties, have called for a greater US presence in Pakistan's tribal areas. These comments almost certainly reflect the advice these politicians are receiving from their foreign-policy and national-security advisors, thus indicating many American policymakers view the current situation in Pakistan as a major strategic concern.

III. These following events indicate the US and NATO are preparing to take more aggressive actions in Pakistan.


A full complete text is found here
http://www.strategicintelligenceestimates.com/pakistan2.html
3 pages long...

Epigone,

Thus you do not know what you are talking about and the best you can do is just make verbal insults against the Democrats as you have above. Therefore, if you cannot make concise, reasonable arguments, with cited source links, as I have done above, then stop your flawed, ad-hominem attacks which imply that all US Democrats and Canadian Liberals are leftists or commies- when they are NOT- and simply LEAVE! :armyroleyes:
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill


"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
epigone
Member
[ *  *  * ]
MSantor
Mar 15 2008, 06:01 AM
:bs:

Aah yes. The US already had 8 years under a Republican President the past 8 years and look what it got the RP- most of the US military assistance to the Philippines has been in the form of COIN-related equipment such as more hand-me-down Hueys, but nothing to help improve the EXTERNAL DEFENSE capabilities of the RP. :armyroleyes: Like MRFs or SSMs as well as warships capable of carrying those SSMs. But noooo....those items are not within the context of the current US war against terror.

To hope that the US Republican party will just help the RP improve its external defense capabilities is just pure fantasy. They will only help the RP only when it SUITS AMERICAN INTERESTS, which explains why most of the US military assistance so far has been in the form of COIN-related equipment as well as the JUSMAG personnel.

The RP needs to help itself when it comes to external defense and not depend too much on the US govt. as in the past or else the Philippines will never progress; the United States has its own multitude of internal problems such as what to do with the 12 million, mostly Mexican, illegal immigrants already in the United States. Only a Democratic candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can bring about the change that needs to happen in the United States.

Furthermore, Barack Obama intends to shift the focus of the current War against Terror from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the war is not going too good right now and where the focus of the war should have been the whole time; all this time under Bush and still the US and their allies still have not caught Bin Laden!

Obama may surely finish the job that Bush could not finish; he has pledged to actually send US troops to the region of Waziristan of Pakistan and actually find and destroy the Al Qaeda remnants and Bin Laden once and for all! Destroying Al Qaeda and Bin Laden will destroy a core motivational symbol for jihadists around the world, including those in the Southern Philippines and possibly in Indonesia with Jemaah Islamiyah- catching or killing Bin Laden once and for all will show the world that no one can get away with terrorism! That will surely cause a decline in Islamic Jihadism worldwide so that US and UN programs like USAID development projects can lift more people out of poverty, which GMA has said is one of the main catalysts for terrorism as well.

Thus, my point is that one is more likely to see such an increase in economic and developmental aid to the Philippines sponsored by such international government organizations such as the UN and US programs like USAID only under a Democratic President rather than a Republican President.

The most that the US did for foreign aid under the current Bush was to give about TEN BILLION DOLLARS in military aid to Pakistan (including those F16 fighters included in the deal mainly to please Lockheed Martin with yet another profitable deal, while doing nothing really helpful to address the festering Al Qaeda problem not only within Waziristan, but all over Pakistan), according to US Senator Joseph Biden in the November 2007 Democratic Debate on CNN.

This Waziristan-Pakistan intervention possibility is also explored in the ff. commentary link by William Arkin:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...ml?nav=rss_blog

Quote:
 

Obama Attacks Pakistan; Pakistan Retaliates
This week saw the unusual spectacle of a foreign government criticizing a U.S. presidential candidate. The government is Pakistan and the candidate is Sen. Barack Obama -- and while such criticism is rare, Obama's remarks were pretty strange, too.

Speaking at Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Obama said that, as president, he would not hesitate to order unilateral military action against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan if he had intelligence information that warranted a strike. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri called his remarks "very irresponsible." Sher Afgan, minister for parliamentary affairs, said it was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election."

The relevant portion of Obama's speech is as follows:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama focused on Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan, and generally his position is that withdrawal from Iraq will facilitate a shift in counterterrorism to this part of the world and a refocus on al-Qaeda central. The United States should not "repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal."

It's an interesting reading of history -- and a strange view of U.S. foreign policy, especially for someone who is essentially arguing that America should turn its back on Iraq.

First, some history: When Mikhail Gorbachev decided to give up the Soviet fight in Afghanistan, the U.S. government was quick to abandon its efforts there. Of course one of the reasons it could walk away was that Pakistan had actually done most of the work on the ground to organize the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. Pakistan subsequently supported the Taliban, which in the mid-1990s welcomed Osama bin Laden and his Arab fighters back to the country. Afghanistan by then had returned to being a backwater in American foreign policy, as so many countries are.

I'm not defending anything about the George H.W. Bush's or Bill Clinton's priorities, but come on, Obama: Would you really have stayed in Afghanistan in 1989? Al Qaeda didn't even exist then. After Desert Storm, Bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia (where he became aghast at the U.S. military presence in the center of Islam).

So, historically speaking, it is a strange statement. The United States turns its back on countries all the time. Another way of putting it is that it sets other priorities and moves on. In fact, Obama himself is now arguing we should do the same in Iraq today. Whether he is right or wrong, the point is that right now, Iraq is just as important as Afghanistan was in 1989. We've created a mess, and turning our back on it (as much as I support an orderly withdrawal) would be foolish.

Obama says that "Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan." He also says the United States must not "hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." The U.S. must "recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same."

"Substantial progress"? The phrase sounds familiar. It will just prompt a debate about whether the progress is substantial enough. That's Washington in a nutshell. In the end, Obama's perspective is a confused muddle that sounds to me a lot like the policies of the Bush administration -- and is no different than the "Bush-Cheney Lite" Obama has accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of pursuing.

I know, I know, Obama will bomb the world with American values and slay the planet with his eloquence. But as long as he fails to challenge the basic premise of U.S. national security today -- that the threat of terrorism is the only threat, and that it is so grave it demands preemptive and unilateral American action -- he is just sewing his own straitjacket.

By William M. Arkin |  August 3, 2007; 8:12 AM ET



If Obama would actually authorize such an action into Pakistan to flush out Al-Qaeda, it would prove that some US Democrats are also willing to make a "unilateral military action" that a number of them later criticized Bush for doing when he sent US forces into Iraq. Well it's good that Obama is willing to act, though Pakistan seems to be its own can of worms, as discussed before.

And here is further evidence that this plan by Obama may actually have more support than one thinks among the heavy-hitters in Washington:

Quote:
 

B) Many NATO policymakers have also become increasingly concerned about the threat posed by AQC, the Taliban, and other Salafi terrorists that are using Pakistan as a base of operations. All of the major terrorist attacks against the US and Europe starting with the 9/11 can be traced back to Pakistan. Almost all the recently foiled plots in the West can also be traced back to Pakistan, including the British Airline Plot, the shoe-bomb plot, the attacks on US military bases in Germany, and several other recently thwarted attacks. Pakistan also serves as a launching point for the Taliban’s insurgency in Afghanistan.

C) Many American politicians, including several the Presidential candidates from both major parties, have called for a greater US presence in Pakistan's tribal areas. These comments almost certainly reflect the advice these politicians are receiving from their foreign-policy and national-security advisors, thus indicating many American policymakers view the current situation in Pakistan as a major strategic concern.

III. These following events indicate the US and NATO are preparing to take more aggressive actions in Pakistan.


A full complete text is found here
http://www.strategicintelligenceestimates.com/pakistan2.html
3 pages long...

Epigone,

Thus you do not know what you are talking about and the best you can do is just make verbal insults against the Democrats as you have above. Therefore, if you cannot make concise, reasonable arguments, with cited source links, as I have done above, then stop your flawed, ad-hominem attacks which imply that all US Democrats and Canadian Liberals are leftists or commies- when they are NOT- and simply LEAVE! :armyroleyes:

See, that type of argument about 'national interests' is Left rhetoric. Our interests in USA are better accomodated than US interests are in the Philippines!!!! We have doctors, nurses, and businessmen allowed to immigrate in USA. What are US interests in the Philippines? Name them. Multinational companies? They provide us with revenues, they provide employment, etc. They provide us material aid like helicopters, planes, ships, rifles, etc. We also have large business interests in USA. Our enterpreneurs have sister companies in USA. And one of them is the company of my uncle. BETWEEN CHINA AND USA, CHOOSE WHOM DO YOU LIKE TO HAVE ACCESS TO OUR SEAS TO PROVIDE US WITH NAVAL PROTECTION? I WOULD CHOOSE USA. AND WE CANNOT DO AWAY WITHOUT A SUPERPOWER PROTECTING OUR SEAS AND OUR TERRITORY. CHINA IS A HOSTILE NATION!!!@@@@
"Provocation is a valid defense against homicide"- Canadian Law on MSantor who 'cough, cough..', passes by my company room with a cup of coffee, waits for me in the bus shelter together with his friends and provoke me, and has been stalking me in forums like army.ca, navy.ca, timawa.net, militaryforums.com... He indeed is 'SEEKING DEATH' - Holy Bible.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
MSantor
Member Avatar

PDFF Mod Group
:armyroleyes: Whatever, man. And BTW, you never addressed my argument that in the 8 years that Bush was in the White House, the Philippines' external defense capabilities never improved; the PAF still does not have MRFs/new fighters or new warships equipped with SSMs. The only "assistance" that the Bush administration gave to the RP was in the form of JUSMAG personnel as well as VFA exercises as well as that small contingent of US soldiers in the South- all of which only helps the RP when it comes to COIN/counterinsurgency because it is in the context of a US war against terrorism, but does not help the Philippines' external capabilities. So much for Republican American support.

It is only with such new equipment such as MRFs and new warships that the AFP can adequately defend the RP's claim to the Spratleys.

You are still using your "you are a leftist" ad-hominem arguments to attack me instead of responding to my arguments directly and using cited source links to back up reasonable arguments.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill


"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Zero wing
Member Avatar
ZAFT Sepcial Forces Operative for SEA
[ *  *  * ]
so what u people r trying 2 say lets wait 4 dear old unlce sam to help man!!! thats low that means we can't defend ourselevs so whats the propose of us being Independnet if we our self can't defend WTF >>>? stuipid leaders of the country 2day thinking about their investments in government we should remove them from office they see this as a form of bizness not a service 2 the people my point is that next time we should elec leaders with a plan and make that bill that congress that they trying 2 pass and 4 the stupid Aholes we callled leaders do something about this and show some backbone kaya wala na nagrerespeto sa mgA filipino kahiyahiya yan the best warriors ya right !!!! were down in respect with the international community kasi sa mga gago mga 2 teir evil knows no limit PUK nila man !!!! so ano ngayon kung magalit ng mga gago PRC na yun ano gagawin nila attakihin nila tayo i like 2 see them try !!! and dont try to use to much international law and hid on it like child kainis bobo matatalino pero bobo damn it !!!! :armytwisted:
"No sacrifice is too great in the service of freedom."

“As long as we are not willing to provide an adequate, suitable and capable defense for this country, we will be oppressed, demeaned and dishonored. We will be the stepping mat of every country in this region,”(Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile)

“Just because we are a very weak country militarily, we should not be taken advantage of by more powerful countries" (Senate committee on national defense and security chairman Panfilo Lacson)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
desertranger
Member
[ *  *  * ]
For me I can't help but think the Chinese connection is too friendly. Is it true that they just bought TransCo.
"
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
edwin
Member
[ *  *  * ]
MSantor
Mar 15 2008, 10:30 PM
the Philippines' external defense capabilities never improved; the PAF still does not have MRFs/new fighters or new warships equipped with SSMs.

It is only with such new equipment such as MRFs and new warships that the AFP can adequately defend the RP's claim to the Spratleys.


exactly..

Spratley is a contested island and AFP needs a strong bargaining chips on the table to defend what really belong to us.

No amount of diplomacy will help the Philippines once those island belong to our nation is occupied or force fully taken by other claimant who knows they have a better cards in taking whatever they want to our territory.

The gravity of importance between External defense and Internal defense are about the same. We loose more and maybe our future resources if external defense is neglected.

Our AFP does not have the capability with regards to Externbal defense because we always come out with a lot of reason not to have MRF, ships and Ohter equipment related in defending the country to any outside threat.
Posted Image
It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
israeli
Member Avatar


China Admits Spratly Deal was for “Exploration”
Ricky Carandang


Acknowledging Article 12 Section 2 of the Constitution, the Arroyo regime has defined the debate over the legality of the Spratly deal in the follwing terms. The president is empowered to enter into exploration and development agreements with foreign entities PROVIDED that she notify Congress within 30 days of the execution of the agreement.

She did not notify Congress and provisions of the Spratly deal require that the terms of the agreement be kept confidential (the full text of both the Joint Seismic Undertaking signed with China in September 2004 and the Tripartitite Agreement which includes Vietnam signed in March 2005 are on Newsbreak’s website). Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez have argued that these agreements are merely pre-exploration deals and therefore do not require congressional notification.

But in interviews I did this week that have been aired on ABS-CBN, oil industry experts have argued that seismic mapping in fact constitute exploration. One of those experts is none other than Eduardo Manalac, former PNOC president and the man who signed the agreement on behalf of the Philippines. Manalac confirms that then-acting Justice Secretary Merceditas Gutierrez expressed concerns about the deal’s consitutionality and that the solution was to dub the agreement as a pre-exploration activity. But Manalac–who has been in the oil industry for 30 years– also says plainly that seismic mapping is part of exploration.

What do the Chinese say? In two articles published by the China Daily newspaper’s online edition on August 28, 2005 and November 17, 2005 , the deal is clearly described as an “exploration” venture. Furthermore, in the website of the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) the agreement is announced as follows:

Breakthrough Made in the Cooperative Exploitation of Disputed Area In the South Sea among China, the Philippines and Vietnam

CNOOC subsidiary China Oilfield Services Ltd. (COSL) held a ceremony in Shenzhen on Aug. 26 for implementation of the tripartite agreement on joint marine seismic undertaking and sail of BH502 research vessel, symbolizing new development in the cooperative exploitation of disputed area in the South China Sea among China, the Philippines and Vietnam.

During the bidding for two-dimensional seismic exploration in the agreement area in the South China Sea organized by China, the Philippines and Vietnam from Aug. 8 to 12, COSL made detailed and appropriate market analysis and bidding strategy utilizing its technological advantages and rich experience in marine seismic exploration, passed strict assessment of experts from oil companies in these three countries with the highest scores in technological bidding and commercial bidding, defeated well-known international oilfield service companies and won the project.

CNOOC, Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC) and Vietnam Oil and Gas Corporation (Petrovietnam) signed the Tripartite Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking in the Agreement Area in the South China Sea in March this year.

According to the agreement, CNOOC, PNOC and Petrovietnam will jointly collect rational two-dimensional and three-dimensional seismic statistics in the agreement area in the South China Sea in three years and analyze existing two-dimensional seismic lines in the area. The agreement area covers over 140,000 square kilometers.


So on one hand, you’ve got two lawyers–Raul Gonzales and Mercy Gutierrez–arguing that the deal was pre-exploration. On the other hand, you’ve got two oil industry players–Manalac, the former head of the PNOC and the Chinese governemnt’s national oil exploration company arguing that the deal was in fact an exploration venture.

It just so happens that the two entities arguing that it was an exploration deal are the ones who entered into the original agreement.

Weigh that and make your own conclusions.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Locked Topic