What's new

Will the US defend Philippines if China attacks?

In the world that you live in today... your argument is invalid. If you think your country's position is right then defend it in the international arbitration.

I bet you and your country cant. You'll just play the "bigger stick" argument after the "2000 year old" didnt work. Cant lose to some peaceful country after having $100 billion military budget. Stupid is as stupid does.
 
.
In the world that you live in today... your argument is invalid. If you think your country's position is right then defend it in the international arbitration.

I bet you and your country cant. You'll just play the "bigger stick" argument after the "2000 year old" didnt work. Cant lose to some peaceful country after having $100 billion military budget. Stupid is as stupid does.

International arbitration is for legitimate disputes. The Philippines doesn't have a leg to stand on. You do not arbitrate islands that have belonged to China for 2,000 years. It's like saying you want to arbitrate Taiwan. The idea is preposterous.

----------

Did you mean the 1904 Han-Chinese map is a toilet paper? I have posted other maps in other topic. Inform me if they are also toilet papers.

Anyway, please post the Chinese maps from Han Dynasty. Also 34 maps you mentioned in other topic if possible. I am glad to see them.

Spratly Islands have belonged to China since ancient times

Ocean-faring Chinese explorers had claimed the Spratly Islands a thousand years ago.

[Source: Wikipedia article on Spratly Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]

"Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]"

AYyG4.jpg

By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea islands began to appear. The Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consistently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese dominion of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.

4FpGz.jpg

The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous Qing Dynasty imperial officer. This map clearly shows the sea routes, time, and descriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia and the Philippines. On this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands (Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea islands (including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands).

rHQ1x.jpg

1834 Vietnamese map showed the islands as Chinese "Wanli Changsha."

[Note: Thank you to HuziHaidao12 for the first two pictures and captions.]
 
.
Ancient Maps in the modern world governed by rules = epic fail.

Mongolia, Italy and Spain would be fighting for the world right now if they'll follow logic of the Chinese. LOL!

International arbitration is for legitimate disputes. The Philippines doesn't have a leg to stand on. You do not arbitrate islands that have belonged to China for 2,000 years. It's like saying you want to arbitrate Taiwan. The idea is preposterous.

Who says it belonged to China for 2000 years? Other than of course the Chinese, who else?

No one supports your stupid claim. No one.
 
.
Ancient Maps in the modern world governed by rules = epic fail.

Mongolia, Italy and Spain would be fighting for the world right now if they'll follow logic of the Chinese. LOL!

Mongolia, Italy, and Spain can choose to give up their sovereignty.

China chooses to retain its sovereignty.

Different countries are free to make different choices with their sovereignty.
 
.
Mongolia, Italy, and Spain can choose to give up their sovereignty.

China chooses to retain its sovereignty.

Different countries are free to make different choices with their sovereignty.

And according to the modern world lived by the modern people, those that the Philippines is claiming are all within our Exclusive Economic Zone. You said that arbitration is for legitimate disputes therefore your country doesnt respect anyone's EEZ.

If you cant back up your claims better just shut up and not add up to your 2000 years of humilitation.
 
.
And according to the modern world lived by the modern people, those that the Philippines is claiming are all within our Exclusive Economic Zone. You said that arbitration is for legitimate disputes therefore your country doesnt respect anyone's EEZ.

If you cant back up your claims better just shut up and not add up to your 2000 years of humilitation.

You're an idiot. The EEZ line is between the coastline of Chinese South China Sea islands and the Philippines. Do I have to cite UNCLOS for you?

Have you ever looked at a map of Argentina's EEZ? It is the midline between Argentina and the British Falkland Islands.

----------

http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/2/271.full

"8. Throughout the development of the law of maritime delimitation, there has been some degree of tension between two distinct delimitation methods. Under the “equidistance line” method the maritime boundary between States must follow “the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points” on the coasts. The other method attempts to remedy inequities that can arise in delimitation based on equidistance (particularly in the case of adjacent, as opposed to opposite, coasts) and posits a delimitation based simply on equitable principles or producing equitable results. The approach adopted under customary international law and UNCLOS, and applied by the Court, can be said to be a combination of these two methods."
 
.
You're an idiot. The EEZ line is between the coastline of Chinese South China Sea islands and the Philippines. Do I have to cite UNCLOS for you?

Have you ever looked at a map of Argentina's EEZ? It is the midline between Argentina and the British Falkland Islands.

You're the idiot. Scarborough Shoal is well within the 200 NM EEZ from the nearest Philippine coast and 800 NM from yours. Do the math. Stupid is as stupid does.

And puhlease stop with the Falklands argument since the people who live there are English. M0ron.
 
.
You're the idiot. Scarborough Shoal is well within the 200 NM EEZ from the nearest Philippine coast and 800 NM from yours. Do the math. Stupid is as stupid does.

And puhlease stop with the Falklands argument since the people who live there are English. M0ron.

And the South China Sea islands (Paracels, Spratlys, etc.) have been Chinese for 2,000 years. What's your point?

1. Get a map.

2. Draw a midline between the Filipino coast and every single Chinese island.

3. The midline is your EEZ. Your Filipino EEZ is not 200 miles. It is the midline between the Philippines and a nearby Chinese island.

It's pretty simple.
 
.
And the South China Sea islands (Paracels, Spratlys, etc.) have been Chinese for 2,000 years. What's your point?

Really? Again, says who? The Chinese? stop posting articles that were created by some Chinese to support the Chinese claims because I can humiliate you here by posting articles created by non-Filipino writers saying the chinese claims are absurd. The bias stops there.

And the South China Sea islands (Paracels, Spratlys, etc.) have been Chinese for 2,000 years. What's your point?

Really? Again, says who? The Chinese? stop posting articles that were created by some Chinese to support the Chinese claims because I can humiliate you here by posting articles created by non-Filipino writers saying the chinese claims are absurd. The bias stops there.

And the South China Sea islands (Paracels, Spratlys, etc.) have been Chinese for 2,000 years. What's your point?

1. Get a map.

2. Draw a midline between the Filipino coast and every single Chinese island.

3. The midline is your EEZ. Your Filipino EEZ is not 200 miles. It is the midline between the Philippines and a nearby Chinese island.

It's pretty simple.

facepalm. epic facepalm.
 
.
Really? Again, says who? The Chinese? stop posting articles that were created by some Chinese to support the Chinese claims because I can humiliate you here by posting articles created by non-Filipino writers saying the chinese claims are absurd. The bias stops there.

Really? Again, says who? The Chinese? stop posting articles that were created by some Chinese to support the Chinese claims because I can humiliate you here by posting articles created by non-Filipino writers saying the chinese claims are absurd. The bias stops there.

If you can't deal with the truth, that's your problem. My citations and maps are well documented and can be traced to primary sources.

The bottom line is the world recognizes that China discovered and have owned the South China Sea and islands since the Han Dynasty from 2,000 years ago. It's an immutable fact.
 
.
If you can't deal with the truth, that's your problem. My citations and maps are well documented and can be traced to primary sources.

The bottom line is the world recognizes that China discovered and have owned the South China Sea and islands since the Han Dynasty from 2,000 years ago. It's an immutable fact.

The world? China is not the world. You have neighbors. There's the west. And what truth? the truth is you are losing this battle. EEZ is the midline from the nearest Chinese island to our nearest coast means will be disputing more islands and territorial waters. We only claim what is allowed by the modern world - 200 NM from our nearest coast. You guys misinterpreted it. You claim everything from everyone's nearest coast. Fail.
 
.
Sorry, but I am with Martian on this one. No way am I anti-P.R.China.

That is not surprising considering posting history, your primary interest is China, not the US.
 
.
I have a Gallup Poll citation (see post #91). You have only rhetoric. Only one of us is right and it isn't you.

You want more proof?


Had a large reproof, but forget it. I know the typical spectrum of US opinion, I know you are untruthful. Those who will believe you will believe it, those who won't will not.

Once again your post history is proof enough about what country you put first, that was all that this was about in the first place.
 
.
Had a large reproof, but forget it. I know the typical spectrum of US opinion, I know you are untruthful. Those who will believe you will believe it, those who won't will not.

Once again your post history is proof enough about what country you put first, that was all that this was about in the first place.

Freedom of Speech vs. McCarthyism

You have been unprofessional and engaged in character assassination. You have falsely impugned my personal character and that of my fellow American Huan.

You made ad hominem attacks (e.g. related to your perceived loyalty, which looks like McCarthyism, of other Americans) that were unrelated to the topic under discussion.

By the way, you're a sore loser. I cited a recent Gallup Poll that showed the majority of Americans (76%) have a friendly disposition toward China. I also cited the Commander in Chief's positive view of China.

You don't want to admit it, but you are in the fringe anti-China minority (23%).

----------

Try reading the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Huan and I have not attacked your right to free speech. Unfortunately, you have not shown us the same courtesy.

US Constitution--Bill of Rights--The First Ten Amendments

"Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom