Ammyy
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Then who save you ????
South China Sea Forum
- Thread starter SinoChallenger
- Start date
Then who save you ????
wet dream of Dr. Magatons.
Uncle Sam win, he will turn back to region with 60% Navy Forces to be deploy in next years. China got a headache now.
June 11 is victory for China day. Thanks to our new Supreme Leader Xi Jinping, Beijing grew some balls and wielded the PLA like a mighty sword to decapitate our enemies.
There is enough oil and gas in the South China Sea to make every single Chinese as rich as Saudi or Brunei citizens! Now nobody can stop us from taking our spoils of war. Of course, we can share with our allies, but never with dirty nations like Vietnam and Philippines.
Ìf China invade in to other countries EZZ, necessary action shall be done to stop dỉrty chinese aggressors.
So the U.S. is telling China it can take all the fish and oil it can grab but dont try to stop any ships along the way.
===================================
What we need is just oil and fish
It belong to others, no one let you rob it.
Hey, false flag chinese guy. It's nothing related to victory òf china, it's shameful bullying action of uneducated Chinese.
Battle of Bach Dang River
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Oh Uncle Sam is afraid! 
Taiwanese animation
Last edited by a moderator:
OrionHunter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,818
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Idiotic reply! Clutching at straws, as usual. Your straw-man arguments aren't even funny anymore.
How does INDIA come in here? I thought we were talking about China giving 'lessons' in 'peace' to America? It seems you get an orgasm of sorts every time you mention 'India'.
Stop acting like an adopted Chinese surrogate to please a few yahoos here for some brownie points. It makes you look silly!
T-Rex
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,989
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Your anger induced orgasm is quite interesting. Before lecturing China about peaceful bahaviour lecture your own country because your country isn't really a shining example of what you expect from China!
You're actually CIA men posing as Vietnamese, aren't you? Perhaps that's why you see everybody else in the same light.
OrionHunter
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,818
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
And you're actually a Talibani posing as a Bangladeshi. Perhaps that's why you see everybody else in the same light.
Thomas
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,688
- Reaction score
- 0
Never forget what our Chairman Mao taught us!
Actually China has done the US a great favor. It's actions have opened the door for a bigger US presence in the region and the renewed the use of military bases in the Phillipines. Thank you China!
Now start actually attacking our allies in the region instead chest thumping from planting flags on deserted atols with no defenders. And you might find out how paper tiger the US is. Remember to Obama will most likely be out of office in about 7 months.
SinoChallenger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,523
- Reaction score
- 0
Let us further examine USA's surrender documents
Rough sea: The U.S. should stay clear of Scarborough Shoal
June 14, 2012 12:27 am Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The United States has occasional conflicting interests in the Pacific region, and one of them right now is where to stand in the scrap between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal.
The shoal is an area of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea, named after a 1784 shipwreck, to which both China and the Philippines lay claim. The bits of rock sticking up above the surface of the sea are uninhabited and uninhabitable, although sporadic efforts have been made to put shacks on them. The countries' real interest lies in the fish and possible undersea oil and gas that may be in the region.
The Philippines has been an ally of the United States in the Pacific. This is a point that Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III made during a visit with President Barack Obama last week at the White House. He is seeking U.S. support in his country's competition with China for possession of the Scarborough Shoal, which the Filipinos call Panatag and the Chinese call Huangyan.
Mr. Aquino's pitch was also aimed at the American president's recent affirmation that the United States is now making a "pivot" to Asia, away from Europe, the Middle East and South Asia -- a message also delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta in a recent trip he made to the region.
The United States, however, does not need a new conflict with China that would require military and financial resources, particularly with the Afghanistan War not yet over and the U.S. domestic scene in need of attention. The Chinese have signaled their point of view, that a maritime dispute in the South China Sea is, in the words of Gen. Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army, "not America's business."
It might be tempting for Mr. Obama, in the midst of a campaign, or the Pentagon, looking to protect its budget in the face of cuts, to respond to Gen. Ma's challenge, but it is much more sensible to look the other way. For the United States to confront the Chinese over some rocks sticking out of the South China Sea, even at the behest of the Philippines, makes no sense.
Rough sea: The U.S. should stay clear of Scarborough Shoal - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Rough sea: The U.S. should stay clear of Scarborough Shoal
June 14, 2012 12:27 am Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The United States has occasional conflicting interests in the Pacific region, and one of them right now is where to stand in the scrap between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal.
The shoal is an area of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea, named after a 1784 shipwreck, to which both China and the Philippines lay claim. The bits of rock sticking up above the surface of the sea are uninhabited and uninhabitable, although sporadic efforts have been made to put shacks on them. The countries' real interest lies in the fish and possible undersea oil and gas that may be in the region.
The Philippines has been an ally of the United States in the Pacific. This is a point that Philippines President Benigno S. Aquino III made during a visit with President Barack Obama last week at the White House. He is seeking U.S. support in his country's competition with China for possession of the Scarborough Shoal, which the Filipinos call Panatag and the Chinese call Huangyan.
Mr. Aquino's pitch was also aimed at the American president's recent affirmation that the United States is now making a "pivot" to Asia, away from Europe, the Middle East and South Asia -- a message also delivered by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta in a recent trip he made to the region.
The United States, however, does not need a new conflict with China that would require military and financial resources, particularly with the Afghanistan War not yet over and the U.S. domestic scene in need of attention. The Chinese have signaled their point of view, that a maritime dispute in the South China Sea is, in the words of Gen. Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army, "not America's business."
It might be tempting for Mr. Obama, in the midst of a campaign, or the Pentagon, looking to protect its budget in the face of cuts, to respond to Gen. Ma's challenge, but it is much more sensible to look the other way. For the United States to confront the Chinese over some rocks sticking out of the South China Sea, even at the behest of the Philippines, makes no sense.
Rough sea: The U.S. should stay clear of Scarborough Shoal - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Ammyy
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
I think you looks great supporter of Chinese policy for her neighbours ????
I think India should also start to follow these policy
Eww and you will vote for Mitt Romney sorry to say this, but I rather Obama more man.
SinoChallenger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,523
- Reaction score
- 0
Let us continue our survey of USA's surrender documents 
Obama's Asia 'Bluff'
When a leading expert on military affairs recently told a Brookings Institution meeting that President Obama’s much-touted pivot to Asia was “a bluff,” I considered the statement way off the mark. But since then, I have concluded that there is indeed less to Obama’s grand change in strategy than meets the eye. In fact, the pivot makes little sense. This suggests that one ought to look for domestic explanations.
The media points to the drawdown of American troops in the Middle East (particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan) and their increase in the Far East as exhibit one of the realignment of American military forces called for by the pivot. Actually, the new commitment to Asia is minuscule. The press refers to new deployment of 2,500 Marines in the region, but only 250 troops have actually arrived to date. The remainder are not expected to arrive for years. Furthermore, even when in full force—some say ten years from now—the Marines will add little to the 55,442 troops already stationed in the Asia-Pacific region at the end of last year, mostly in Japan (36,708), Guam (4,272) and afloat (13,618).
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced in early June that there also will be a shift in U.S. naval forces. While until now the United States has divided its warships roughly equally between the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Pacific will now host 60 percent of the fleet, albeit of a smaller fleet.
However, Panetta stressed that it will “take years for these concepts, and many of the investments we are making, to be fully realized.” There also will be more frequent visits by the American warships in Asian ports, and some ships will be berthed in Singapore, which is sure to delight the sailors and some local professionals but otherwise not matter much.
More significant is the question of what role these forces will play in the region. Obviously, our troops—even as augmented with a few Marines—are not meant to engage in any forthcoming military confrontation with China, with its constantly expanding and increasingly modernized army consisting of 2,285,000 active troops.
Nor is there any sign that China seeks a military confrontation with the United States. Although China’s military capacity is expanding, even the most hawkish American observers do not think China could stage such a confrontation for at least a decade. Moreover, that the Marines will be located 2,600 miles away from China reveals they are not meant to serve as a tripwire, which would entail placing them on the beaches of Taiwan or at the island chains contested in the South China Sea.
Military analysts will argue that these moves are not meant to provide a substantial realignment of military assets but rather to send a message. But as moviemaker Samuel Goldwyn famously quipped, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Using troops does send a message—but is it one we wish to send?
Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski strongly favored heightened U.S. attempts to engage China as a partner in maintaining global order and urged “co-evolution” with China rather than attempts to contain it. There remains plenty of time to turn to military moves if China refuses to become a responsible stakeholder in the international order. True, China has made several rather assertive claims in the South China Sea, but these have almost uniformly involved laying claims as a starting point for negotiations. The United States may feel that it ought to support countries close to China, such as Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines, so that they will not risk being bullied by the rising global power. However, this can be accomplished through treaties, trade and aid without resorting to the present U.S. strategy of militarizing the conflict.
Why then the military “pivot to Asia”? It does make sense as one part of an election-year campaign, designed to deprive the GOP of one of its favorite and winning claims: that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. The more American voters concentrate on the Far East—in which no war looms and we can act as tough as we want without facing short-term consequences or exorbitant expenditures—the more they might be distracted from the shambles in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia. Hence, the better the world looks.
Mitt Romney’s hawkish statements about China and Russia suggest the Democrats are not the only ones seeking to play this card. Both sides should note, though, that the message is being received. China is likely to respond in kind by further accelerating its military buildup and repositioning some of its own forces. Indeed, it may well deepen its already considerable military ties with Pakistan. The notion that the United States could bankrupt China by involving it in an arms race, as Reagan did to speed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is fanciful given that the United States is in more dire economic straits than is China and that China can invest in next-generation cyber weapons, space arms and antiship missiles without straining its economy.
It might be too much to hope that the Chinese authorities will understand the role domestic politics plays in our foreign policy. But one can rest assured that events in the Middle East—in Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Afghanistan—will remind us soon where the true front lines are.
Amitai Etzioni served as a senior advisor to the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard and The University of California at Berkeley; and is a university professor and professor of international relations at The George Washington University.
Commentary: Obama's Asia 'Bluff' | The National Interest
Obama's Asia 'Bluff'
When a leading expert on military affairs recently told a Brookings Institution meeting that President Obama’s much-touted pivot to Asia was “a bluff,” I considered the statement way off the mark. But since then, I have concluded that there is indeed less to Obama’s grand change in strategy than meets the eye. In fact, the pivot makes little sense. This suggests that one ought to look for domestic explanations.
The media points to the drawdown of American troops in the Middle East (particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan) and their increase in the Far East as exhibit one of the realignment of American military forces called for by the pivot. Actually, the new commitment to Asia is minuscule. The press refers to new deployment of 2,500 Marines in the region, but only 250 troops have actually arrived to date. The remainder are not expected to arrive for years. Furthermore, even when in full force—some say ten years from now—the Marines will add little to the 55,442 troops already stationed in the Asia-Pacific region at the end of last year, mostly in Japan (36,708), Guam (4,272) and afloat (13,618).
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced in early June that there also will be a shift in U.S. naval forces. While until now the United States has divided its warships roughly equally between the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Pacific will now host 60 percent of the fleet, albeit of a smaller fleet.
However, Panetta stressed that it will “take years for these concepts, and many of the investments we are making, to be fully realized.” There also will be more frequent visits by the American warships in Asian ports, and some ships will be berthed in Singapore, which is sure to delight the sailors and some local professionals but otherwise not matter much.
More significant is the question of what role these forces will play in the region. Obviously, our troops—even as augmented with a few Marines—are not meant to engage in any forthcoming military confrontation with China, with its constantly expanding and increasingly modernized army consisting of 2,285,000 active troops.
Nor is there any sign that China seeks a military confrontation with the United States. Although China’s military capacity is expanding, even the most hawkish American observers do not think China could stage such a confrontation for at least a decade. Moreover, that the Marines will be located 2,600 miles away from China reveals they are not meant to serve as a tripwire, which would entail placing them on the beaches of Taiwan or at the island chains contested in the South China Sea.
Military analysts will argue that these moves are not meant to provide a substantial realignment of military assets but rather to send a message. But as moviemaker Samuel Goldwyn famously quipped, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Using troops does send a message—but is it one we wish to send?
Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski strongly favored heightened U.S. attempts to engage China as a partner in maintaining global order and urged “co-evolution” with China rather than attempts to contain it. There remains plenty of time to turn to military moves if China refuses to become a responsible stakeholder in the international order. True, China has made several rather assertive claims in the South China Sea, but these have almost uniformly involved laying claims as a starting point for negotiations. The United States may feel that it ought to support countries close to China, such as Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines, so that they will not risk being bullied by the rising global power. However, this can be accomplished through treaties, trade and aid without resorting to the present U.S. strategy of militarizing the conflict.
Why then the military “pivot to Asia”? It does make sense as one part of an election-year campaign, designed to deprive the GOP of one of its favorite and winning claims: that Democrats are weak on foreign policy. The more American voters concentrate on the Far East—in which no war looms and we can act as tough as we want without facing short-term consequences or exorbitant expenditures—the more they might be distracted from the shambles in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia. Hence, the better the world looks.
Mitt Romney’s hawkish statements about China and Russia suggest the Democrats are not the only ones seeking to play this card. Both sides should note, though, that the message is being received. China is likely to respond in kind by further accelerating its military buildup and repositioning some of its own forces. Indeed, it may well deepen its already considerable military ties with Pakistan. The notion that the United States could bankrupt China by involving it in an arms race, as Reagan did to speed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is fanciful given that the United States is in more dire economic straits than is China and that China can invest in next-generation cyber weapons, space arms and antiship missiles without straining its economy.
It might be too much to hope that the Chinese authorities will understand the role domestic politics plays in our foreign policy. But one can rest assured that events in the Middle East—in Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Afghanistan—will remind us soon where the true front lines are.
Amitai Etzioni served as a senior advisor to the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard and The University of California at Berkeley; and is a university professor and professor of international relations at The George Washington University.
Commentary: Obama's Asia 'Bluff' | The National Interest
SinoChallenger
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,523
- Reaction score
- 0
Continuing our survey of our enemy's instrument of surrender 
Aquino recalls two ships from shoal
MANILA: Philippine President Benigno Aquino has ordered the pullout of two vessels from the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, a top government official reported on Saturday.
gulftoday.ae | Aquino recalls two ships from shoal
Despite the Philippines' submission to China's superpower. China state-owned newspaper continued to humiliate the Pinoys.
Philippines not that important to US
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, who just returned from the United States, gladly participated in the country's 114th Independence Day celebration. Much to his surprise, many Philippine people participated in street protests condemning U.S. intervention in their countrys internal affairs, with hundreds of them fighting with riot police near the U.S. embassy in the country.
The protests show the Philippines' mixed attitude toward the United States. The Philippine government seeks to cooperate with the United States in preventing China's "southward expansion," without considering the interests of the Philippine people. Heaps of rotting bananas, a sharp decline in the number of Chinese tourists, and the indefinite postponement of Yao Ming and his basketball teams friendly games in the Philippines do not bode well for the Philippine people who work hard to make a living.
Aquino has lost his face. He hoped that the United States could lend the Philippines a helping hand in the South China Sea issue according to the 1951 Philippines-U.S. mutual defense treaty, and the Philippines would then give the United States a foothold it needs to return to Asia. However, both U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to satisfy his desire.
It is not that the United States is no longer seeking to contain China, or Chinese diplomats have persuaded the U.S. government to stay out of the South China Sea issue. It is just that China, the Philippines, and the United States view the issue in different ways.
China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea, but does not reject jointly developing the disputed sea with neighboring countries. The Philippines claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles from its coastline in the sea according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States sees the South China Sea as international waters with fuzzy sovereignty, and wants to ensure peace and the freedom of navigation in the sea for its merchant ships and warships. The superpower considers the standoff between China and the Philippines over a disputed land to be a small matter.
Despite some differences over the sovereignty issue, China and the United States both seek to ensure peace in the entire sea, and have more common ground than the Philippines and the United States. Washington is clearly aware that China can play a far more important role than the Philippines in helping realize its global strategy. It needs China's support in a variety of issues such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear issues.
The future of the South China Sea mainly depends on China and the United States. A visible trend is that the sea is becoming increasingly less peaceful. China's development requires smooth economic arteries and abundant resources, and there is an obvious strategic conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea due to the country's "return to Asia" strategy. However, a peaceful South China Sea also serves the interests of all parties concerned.
The Philippines and other countries concerned will have to make a crucial choice in the coming period between actively participating in resolving the South China Sea through negotiations and continuing to confront China.
Philippines not that important to US - People's Daily Online
Aquino recalls two ships from shoal
MANILA: Philippine President Benigno Aquino has ordered the pullout of two vessels from the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, a top government official reported on Saturday.
gulftoday.ae | Aquino recalls two ships from shoal
Despite the Philippines' submission to China's superpower. China state-owned newspaper continued to humiliate the Pinoys.
Philippines not that important to US
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, who just returned from the United States, gladly participated in the country's 114th Independence Day celebration. Much to his surprise, many Philippine people participated in street protests condemning U.S. intervention in their countrys internal affairs, with hundreds of them fighting with riot police near the U.S. embassy in the country.
The protests show the Philippines' mixed attitude toward the United States. The Philippine government seeks to cooperate with the United States in preventing China's "southward expansion," without considering the interests of the Philippine people. Heaps of rotting bananas, a sharp decline in the number of Chinese tourists, and the indefinite postponement of Yao Ming and his basketball teams friendly games in the Philippines do not bode well for the Philippine people who work hard to make a living.
Aquino has lost his face. He hoped that the United States could lend the Philippines a helping hand in the South China Sea issue according to the 1951 Philippines-U.S. mutual defense treaty, and the Philippines would then give the United States a foothold it needs to return to Asia. However, both U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to satisfy his desire.
It is not that the United States is no longer seeking to contain China, or Chinese diplomats have persuaded the U.S. government to stay out of the South China Sea issue. It is just that China, the Philippines, and the United States view the issue in different ways.
China claims sovereignty over the South China Sea, but does not reject jointly developing the disputed sea with neighboring countries. The Philippines claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles from its coastline in the sea according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States sees the South China Sea as international waters with fuzzy sovereignty, and wants to ensure peace and the freedom of navigation in the sea for its merchant ships and warships. The superpower considers the standoff between China and the Philippines over a disputed land to be a small matter.
Despite some differences over the sovereignty issue, China and the United States both seek to ensure peace in the entire sea, and have more common ground than the Philippines and the United States. Washington is clearly aware that China can play a far more important role than the Philippines in helping realize its global strategy. It needs China's support in a variety of issues such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear issues.
The future of the South China Sea mainly depends on China and the United States. A visible trend is that the sea is becoming increasingly less peaceful. China's development requires smooth economic arteries and abundant resources, and there is an obvious strategic conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea due to the country's "return to Asia" strategy. However, a peaceful South China Sea also serves the interests of all parties concerned.
The Philippines and other countries concerned will have to make a crucial choice in the coming period between actively participating in resolving the South China Sea through negotiations and continuing to confront China.
Philippines not that important to US - People's Daily Online
Similar threads
