What's new

Three countries condemn Philippine's murder of unarmed Taiwanese fisherman

Taiwan should not enter the Beijing trap. It is just obvious.

Trap or no trap its none of your business.
We never want to trap our People living in Taiwan
Its the People on the 2 sides of the strait to decide for unification in the end

I wonder why Chinese are so obsessed with such thing like sorry or sorrying?

Haha, vietcongs will never understand this universal protocol! Why dont you ask the culprits why they are so persistent with their wrongs against giving sincere apologies?
 
.
Manila is "the gates of hell" - Dan Brown, author of “Da Vinci Code”


dan-brown.jpg


Philippine capital angered by "Da Vinci Code" author - Channel NewsAsia


...........


Diplomacy?



It is nearly two weeks since the diplomatic crisis with Taiwan began. Through that whole period, President Aquino has not publicly addressed the matter.

In any other nation, when a diplomatic crisis breaks out, the Chief Executive quickly addresses his people. This is done to calm fears, set perspective, perhaps even lay down a policy response to the matter.

Addressing the people is not just an option for a head of government. It is a grave responsibility.

It is not that the President completely fell out of sight. He briefly emerged shortly after the elections to sign into law the K to 12 bill, a contentious law left in the shelf until after the voting.

We know he is somewhere in the Palace, but, like an ostrich, chose to bury his head in the sand regarding the Taiwan question. I recall a Palace functionary mumbling something about the restraints of our One-China policy preventing Aquino from publicly addressing the matter.


Where's Noy Noy?

ostrich-pillow-2.jpg


I fail, however, to find any sense in that excuse. The president of Taiwan, like the chief executive of the Hong Kong special autonomous region, is our partner in various international forums. No protocol is breached if we talk about the death of a fisherman after the cockpit of his ship was raked with machinegun fire.

The fact is, buried under many layers of diplomatic hypocrisy, we do have bilateral relations with Taiwan. The island powerhouse is one of our most important economic partners. We have over 80,000 Filipinos working there — whose safety and employment security are now in jeopardy.

The families of Filipino workers in Taiwan are worried sick over the safety of their loved ones. Our tourism sector is now counting the probable losses from Taiwan’s blacklisting of the Philippines. Businessmen are fidgety over the punitive measures imposed by Taipei. No one knows where the bottom of this quagmire is.

Presidential silence aggravates the anxieties.

The MECO chair, a small town politician named to a sensitive post, was tasked with conveying our hedged apologies to the Taiwanese people. His apology rejected, he was sent home. There is a thing to be said about the gravitas and the skills of people appointed to key diplomatic postings in this administration.

As was the problem in previous diplomatic crises, presidential silence is aggravated by the vacuous loquaciousness of those tasked to speak on his behalf.

Silent

CSreading_silently.gif


Edwin Lacierda and Abigail Valte appear to have not yet realized that whatever they say in their daily press conferences will be taken as official policy positions. Day in and day out, in their version of the Punch and Judy Show, the two spokespersons somehow manage to utter the most incredible things.

Lacierda and Valte are fixed on a tit-for-tat mode. Addressing burning foreign policy controversies in that mode can only produce disasters.

Recall when China returned our banana exports last year. That produced great anxiety in communities dependent on our banana exports. I cannot recall now if it was Punch or Judy who declared that we will sell bananas to the Singaporeans as alternative to the mainland Chinese market. There is an arithmetic anomaly here. Even if we force-feed Singaporeans with our bananas all the days of the year, they cannot possibly consume the volume we sell to China.

Last week, when Taipei announced, as part of a package of punitive measures, no new migrant workers contracts will be accepted, the daring duo haughtily announced we will find alternative employment elsewhere for our workers. Well, we have been trying to do that for years and still could not find enough jobs for all Filipinos who wish to work abroad.

That cocky public posture is contradicted by the fact that we are working all the available backchannels to secure the highly skilled jobs Filipinos already hold in Taiwan. Instead of threatening Taiwan with a pullout of our workers, the diplomatic response was to call for restraint and then try to soothe ruffled feathers.

Instead of repeating the intrigue that Taipei’s reaction is politically motivated, we should focus on the official matter at hand. Good grief, the anger in the streets of Taiwan is real.

We now know that one of the major reasons our apology was rejected as insincere is that Valte, after announcing the apology on television punctuated it with her habitual smirk. That rubbed salt on the wound. It is the equivalent of President Aquino caught on camera smiling while inspecting the bus where Hong Kong tourists were just killed.

Valte smirk Ouch that hurts!

images


smirk_apldotorgdotph.jpg


The question most asked these days: Who is in charge of managing the present crisis with Taiwan? Heaven forbid, could it be the silly duo speaking for the Palace?

Yes, who is in charge of managing this crisis, of evolving a coherent strategy to restore us to the robust, mutually beneficial relationship we had with Taiwan before this thing exploded in our face?

If there is no effective management and no coherent strategy in place, then Lacierda and Valte will just have to wing it. That is exactly what they have been doing since the crisis broke out.

Although this might not be evident, we should presume Lacierda and Valte know they do not make policy. We should also presume the two are well aware of the substantive differences between a public relations problem and a diplomatic problem. The tools for addressing either are very different.

It will be easier for us to presume regularity if someone tells us who the crisis manager for this is.

Who's the boss?

tumblr_m6xvq0FijE1raoaofo1_500.jpg


Diplomacy | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

Guest who is in top of list?

Rankopedia: Worst World Leader Ever
 
.
Also one need to look at the proximity of Taiwan to japan, if the US got suck into a fight in Taiwan, then it would delay their plan to incurs in Japanese Mainland. Which have the exact same effect for invading smaller island like Iwo Jima or Okinawa, Taiwan was a redundant Military objective to the allied force. Actually you can say if US decided to invade Taiwan, that would be a sole political decision that they JUST WANTED TO LIBERATE TAIWAN. With literally 0 military strategical or tactical value. Not the other way around
l

It's precisely the proximity of Taiwan to Japan that would have provided better support for the planned invasion of Japan, the same bases would have also provided expanded support for the nationalists in mainland China, and be a major blow against the Japanese position in China where most of the Japanese army was committed, forcing the Japanese to withdraw from some coastal areas.

But the case with Philippine is different. With Philippine overlooking sea route to Dutch East Indies (today Indonesia), which still have a Strategic importance to the Japanese, with Joint Chief of staff and the President both say no to commit any invasion to DEI, it remain with the Japanese hand until the Japanese surrendered in 1945. With it's oil reserve and Strategic material, if those item are to broke thru and reach Japan, this alone will prolong the fight. Hence an liberation of Philippine is a good choice to get those supply in check for those 2 years.

The navy had already largely accomplished this before the invasion, the submarine force was well on the way to destroying the Japanese maru fleet. This effectively cut Japan off from the Southern Resource Zone raw materials and isolated Japanese garrisons.

Invasion of Taiwan would have severed the only remaining link between the Southern Resource Zone and Japan to end the flow of oil reserve and strategic material via the coastal sea lanes through the Taiwan Straits.
 
. .
If tw does not sink your ships, China will soon. Let's see whether your daddy will support you. :)

Sure you will because your always support mass killings of people oh i forgot your term i meant to say reeducation :rofl:

If there is fight between tw and ph, tw will definitely annihilate the pathetic ph navy.

US sell weapon,train TWese pilots to fight against China,not.against Phil.

Even Phil.may kill.more TWese,US surely still.stay in Phil's side.
 
.
Ya they would but am not counting on it you people are just full of b.s can even face us in civilized court because you have no real evidence and logic just rhetoric typical really
 
.
What a moronic statement. If China launched a nuke, then you're entire country will be vaporized, buddy. China would be erased from the entire map. Nuclear threats don't win wars, nuclear threats equates your country being glassed.

What a bigger moronic statement. You pulled that from your a$$? USA is going to commit suicide by trying to wipe out China? Think before you post. You think you know, but you don't know jacksh1t!
 
.
What a moronic statement. If China launched a nuke, then you're entire country will be vaporized, buddy. China would be erased from the entire map. Nuclear threats don't win wars, nuclear threats equates your country being glassed.

Chinese EMPs, megaton thermonuclear warheads, and ability to glass too

A megaton EMP warhead can be thermonuclear-based, but it is not a thermonuclear warhead in the traditional sense. When a thermonuclear warhead lands, millions can die. When an EMP warhead detonates 120 miles above the Earth, you only find that F-22s, B-2s, and aircraft carriers don't function. Do you understand the difference?

Also, you sound like an idiot. The United States is fully aware that China is a mature thermonuclear power. China has been building megaton-class thermonuclear warheads for 46 years. The first Chinese thermonuclear detonation was 3.3 megatons in 1967 (see video below). Threatening to nuke China only ensures that China will nuke the U.S.

Hence, no U.S. president has publicly threatened to nuke China in recent decades. China has the power to turn the U.S. into glass too. I suggest you read up on MAD (ie. mutually assured destruction).

By the way, please identify yourself as an Indian-American. Forum members have a right to know that you are speaking up for India and not for the average American, who are quite friendly with Chinese people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
It's precisely the proximity of Taiwan to Japan that would have provided better support for the planned invasion of Japan, the same bases would have also provided expanded support for the nationalists in mainland China, and be a major blow against the Japanese position in China where most of the Japanese army was committed, forcing the Japanese to withdraw from some coastal areas.



The navy had already largely accomplished this before the invasion, the submarine force was well on the way to destroying the Japanese maru fleet. This effectively cut Japan off from the Southern Resource Zone raw materials and isolated Japanese garrisons.

Invasion of Taiwan would have severed the only remaining link between the Southern Resource Zone and Japan to end the flow of oil reserve and strategic material via the coastal sea lanes through the Taiwan Straits.

First of all, next time, if you need to break down the article, you need to include the quote username part, otherwise I will not get the notice on quoting.

Back to your point. No, Taiwan would not be better than Iwo or Okinawa. While the reason you said for proximity support, you can do it with either invading Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa, you do not need to invade Taiwan for that simply because Taiwan is further than Japan away from Okinawa or Iwo Jima. from the Mariana Jumping point, it's more or less favour Iwo than Taiwan as the distant is closer.

Also, why would you invade Taiwan if all you want is to establish a beach head and support your Japanese Mainland Invasion. Taiwan have more Japanese troop than Iwo Jima, Taiwan have 100,000 + Japanese/Korean Troop vs 18,000 in Iwo, why stir up the hornet nest when you can take an island that's closer with less defender??

There are only 2 reason you want to invade an island in Pacific Campaign. 1.) is you want to take the threat out of those Island (like Palau or Rabul) or you want to establish the Airfield for your future operation (like Guadalcanal or Saipan) Just honestly answer me this, what can Taiwan offer that did not offered by Iwo Jima or Okinawa??

Your second paragraph is contradicting with each other, if Sub can be serve to sever the transport line in DEI and Japan, then why you need Taiwan to sever the South Resupply route, if what you say in the first part is true, then you do not need to liberate Taiwan at all, just send in sub. If What you said in 2nd Part is true, then you hinted that Sub cannot do the job on severing the Supply route from DEI.

Sub alone cannot secure the whole sea lane, do you know how many sub German Deploy in Battle of Atlantic? and Do you know how many the US deploy in the Asiatic sea lane? Even with that number in Germany, they can't totally stop the Allied Supply chain. Sub alone cannot be used to secure sealane. You need surface ship, when you have surface ship, you also have to establish ground contact.

Not to mention Philippine is home to as many as 20,000 US POW, there are tactical consideration involve in liberation of Philippine rather than Taiwan.
 
. . .
First of all, next time, if you need to break down the article, you need to include the quote username part, otherwise I will not get the notice on quoting.

Back to your point. No, Taiwan would not be better than Iwo or Okinawa. While the reason you said for proximity support, you can do it with either invading Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa, you do not need to invade Taiwan for that simply because Taiwan is further than Japan away from Okinawa or Iwo Jima. from the Mariana Jumping point, it's more or less favour Iwo than Taiwan as the distant is closer.

Also, why would you invade Taiwan if all you want is to establish a beach head and support your Japanese Mainland Invasion. Taiwan have more Japanese troop than Iwo Jima, Taiwan have 100,000 + Japanese/Korean Troop vs 18,000 in Iwo, why stir up the hornet nest when you can take an island that's closer with less defender??

There are only 2 reason you want to invade an island in Pacific Campaign. 1.) is you want to take the threat out of those Island (like Palau or Rabul) or you want to establish the Airfield for your future operation (like Guadalcanal or Saipan) Just honestly answer me this, what can Taiwan offer that did not offered by Iwo Jima or Okinawa??

Your second paragraph is contradicting with each other, if Sub can be serve to sever the transport line in DEI and Japan, then why you need Taiwan to sever the South Resupply route, if what you say in the first part is true, then you do not need to liberate Taiwan at all, just send in sub. If What you said in 2nd Part is true, then you hinted that Sub cannot do the job on severing the Supply route from DEI.

Sub alone cannot secure the whole sea lane, do you know how many sub German Deploy in Battle of Atlantic? and Do you know how many the US deploy in the Asiatic sea lane? Even with that number in Germany, they can't totally stop the Allied Supply chain. Sub alone cannot be used to secure sealane. You need surface ship, when you have surface ship, you also have to establish ground contact.

Not to mention Philippine is home to as many as 20,000 US POW, there are tactical consideration involve in liberation of Philippine rather than Taiwan.

This isn't a Iwo / Okinawa vs Taiwan scenario, so I'm not sure why you are comparing these 2 scenarios; if you really wanted to compare the number of troops that had to be dealt with, it'd be a fairer comparison to compare the number of troops in Taiwan and Philippines (100,000+ vs 300,000+), though to be fair, in the Philippines, the American troops would have had the advantage of being greeted by a friendly population while in Taiwan, they would have most likely faced a hostile population.

From a humanitarian perspective, it was important to rescue the 20,000 POWs in the Philippines; however from a tactical perspective as you have suggested here, was it a good trade to lose 80,000+ soldiers to rescue 20,000 POWs?

The Taiwan straits is too shallow for the submarine force to operate in, that's why Taiwan had to be taken in that scenario in order to cut off the last link in the supply chain.

It's true that the submarine force can't secure the whole sea lane 100%, that's why I said it had largely been accomplished in my last post; however, it's really all about weighing the options and the costs of those options, isn't it? Was it more worthwhile to spend all that resources, time and manpower in order to achieve a 100% result, or is it better to achieve a 95% result with much less sacrifices..

My primary point is that the Taiwan invasion plan was also a very viable alternative option and one that could have quite possibly been chosen, while you and a few others here seem to keep suggesting that Taiwan invasion plan had 0 merits.
 
.
This isn't a Iwo / Okinawa vs Taiwan scenario, so I'm not sure why you are comparing these 2 scenarios; if you really wanted to compare the number of troops that had to be dealt with, it'd be a fairer comparison to compare the number of troops in Taiwan and Philippines (100,000+ vs 300,000+), though to be fair, in the Philippines, the American troops would have had the advantage of being greeted by a friendly population while in Taiwan, they would have most likely faced a hostile population.

From a humanitarian perspective, it was important to rescue the 20,000 POWs in the Philippines; however from a tactical perspective as you have suggested here, was it a good trade to lose 80,000+ soldiers to rescue 20,000 POWs?

The Taiwan straits is too shallow for the submarine force to operate in, that's why Taiwan had to be taken in that scenario in order to cut off the last link in the supply chain.

It's true that the submarine force can't secure the whole sea lane 100%, that's why I said it had largely been accomplished in my last post; however, it's really all about weighing the options and the costs of those options, isn't it? Was it more worthwhile to spend all that resources, time and manpower in order to achieve a 100% result, or is it better to achieve a 95% result with much less sacrifices..

My primary point is that the Taiwan invasion plan was also a very viable alternative option and one that could have quite possibly been chosen, while you and a few others here seem to keep suggesting that Taiwan invasion plan had 0 merits.

Guys this a thread about the philippines and taiwan please create a historical thread for this please
 
.
Good post.
Especially the last point.

First of all, next time, if you need to break down the article, you need to include the quote username part, otherwise I will not get the notice on quoting.

Back to your point. No, Taiwan would not be better than Iwo or Okinawa. While the reason you said for proximity support, you can do it with either invading Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa, you do not need to invade Taiwan for that simply because Taiwan is further than Japan away from Okinawa or Iwo Jima. from the Mariana Jumping point, it's more or less favour Iwo than Taiwan as the distant is closer.

Also, why would you invade Taiwan if all you want is to establish a beach head and support your Japanese Mainland Invasion. Taiwan have more Japanese troop than Iwo Jima, Taiwan have 100,000 + Japanese/Korean Troop vs 18,000 in Iwo, why stir up the hornet nest when you can take an island that's closer with less defender??

There are only 2 reason you want to invade an island in Pacific Campaign. 1.) is you want to take the threat out of those Island (like Palau or Rabul) or you want to establish the Airfield for your future operation (like Guadalcanal or Saipan) Just honestly answer me this, what can Taiwan offer that did not offered by Iwo Jima or Okinawa??

Your second paragraph is contradicting with each other, if Sub can be serve to sever the transport line in DEI and Japan, then why you need Taiwan to sever the South Resupply route, if what you say in the first part is true, then you do not need to liberate Taiwan at all, just send in sub. If What you said in 2nd Part is true, then you hinted that Sub cannot do the job on severing the Supply route from DEI.

Sub alone cannot secure the whole sea lane, do you know how many sub German Deploy in Battle of Atlantic? and Do you know how many the US deploy in the Asiatic sea lane? Even with that number in Germany, they can't totally stop the Allied Supply chain. Sub alone cannot be used to secure sealane. You need surface ship, when you have surface ship, you also have to establish ground contact.

Not to mention Philippine is home to as many as 20,000 US POW, there are tactical consideration involve in liberation of Philippine rather than Taiwan.
 
.
This isn't a Iwo / Okinawa vs Taiwan scenario, so I'm not sure why you are comparing these 2 scenarios; if you really wanted to compare the number of troops that had to be dealt with, it'd be a fairer comparison to compare the number of troops in Taiwan and Philippines (100,000+ vs 300,000+), though to be fair, in the Philippines, the American troops would have had the advantage of being greeted by a friendly population while in Taiwan, they would have most likely faced a hostile population.

From a humanitarian perspective, it was important to rescue the 20,000 POWs in the Philippines; however from a tactical perspective as you have suggested here, was it a good trade to lose 80,000+ soldiers to rescue 20,000 POWs?

The Taiwan straits is too shallow for the submarine force to operate in, that's why Taiwan had to be taken in that scenario in order to cut off the last link in the supply chain.

It's true that the submarine force can't secure the whole sea lane 100%, that's why I said it had largely been accomplished in my last post; however, it's really all about weighing the options and the costs of those options, isn't it? Was it more worthwhile to spend all that resources, time and manpower in order to achieve a 100% result, or is it better to achieve a 95% result with much less sacrifices..

My primary point is that the Taiwan invasion plan was also a very viable alternative option and one that could have quite possibly been chosen, while you and a few others here seem to keep suggesting that Taiwan invasion plan had 0 merits.

First of all. rescue 20,000 POW is not a humanitarian prospective, it's a morale boosting perspective, hence it's good for fighting. Do you know why our forces need operation such as Raid at Cabanatuan. It's not like yeah we do it for our captured boys, we do this for the boys still fighting.

Secondly the reason I compare the Iwo/Okinawa vs Taiwan is because they serve the same procession of making it a launch pad for Mainland Japan. You want to end the war quick, the only way is a fight in Japan. Of course you can mud around, wasting human life and resource and try to jump any island you want, but the ultimate goal should be and had been trying to jump at Japan the quickest as possible.

So, if you are Nimitz in 1944/1945. In order to facilitate an invasion to Japanese Homeland. Will you launch an attack on Taiwan or Launch an attack to Iwo which is closer and with less defender?

Thirdly, you do not need to use sub to "Blockade" the Japanese resupply chain, you have airbase that can reach Taiwan and cover the whole thing, you can use air interdiction to stop supply running from the South to Japan, which is what the US actually do in WW2.

Lastly, again as I said, there are only 2 reason why any country wanted to invade an island by serving it ultimate goal. You either want to denial the enemy from using it. Or you want to use it in support of your own operation. And I had raised this question a few post before, what is offered by Taiwan did not offered by either Iwo Jima or Okinawa?? You never answer me this question instead you say something about Invasion in Taiwan vs Invasion to Philippine, both have different tactical need to start with, you cannot compare the two.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom