Phillipine leader terminates troop agreement with U.S., page 4

posted on Feb, 12 2020 @ 06:40 PM

link

a reply to: makemap

Actually, I think you'll find that the Japanese navy was much more heavily influenced/helped by the British. Not the American's. The American govt. began planning for the possibility of a war in the Pacific not long after WWI, and planning for the likelihood of it after the Japanese, rightfully in all fairness, walked out on the Washington and London Naval Treaties.

generik

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 07:04 AM

link

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: generik

while you apparently fail to realize that they US has not had much of a military presence for in the Philippines for about 30 years.

Then who is Duerte kicking out, right now?

and the fact is that until the Japanese took over in ww2, the US was actually in the Process of giving the Philippines their independence. but the war and goings on changed all that. i know the people were a bit upset that that process didn't immediately continue after the war. but that was actually a good thing. we have all seen the results of countries gaining their independence before they are ready and really able to deal with it. just take a look at Africa.

heck the Philippines has had enough problems recovering from a dictatorship that ended in the mid 80's. the corruption from then was just starting to get cleaned up. things like that unfortunately do take a long time, and we are talking about over 30 years to recover. the same was true after the Japanese since they tended to kill off those that were opposed to them, leaving it to their lackies to run things. the big problem being you just can't totally clean house of those people, especially in the bureaucracy of government out and place people with no clue in their places. even in Nazi Germany they couldn't just get rid of everyone who had been in place under the Nazi regime. since to do so would be to just create chaos. you can only get rid of the worst of them, keeping much of them in place. and then just like now it actually takes a couple generations to weed most of that type of corruption out. and the Philippines had actually been doing a decent job of doing so, until Duterte was elected and started going backwards. one of the reasons he was elected, since many of those who prospered under said dictatorship want to regain what they had.

and lets be honest about things. the US has not been trampling the sovereignty of other nations.

What?

When the U.S. Doesn't Respect Other Countries' Sovereignty - The Atlantic

I suppose that when they killed Solemaini it was on American territory? Face it, the US doesn't give a crap about the sovereignty of other countries or their political processes.

it has been a tug of war of influence between the Americans and communists like China and Russia. and most Filipinos while they didn't really like the Americans in charge (and given their history of hundreds of years of Spanish rule, and the Japanese occupation, who can blame them), they are still grateful for the protection that granted them from things like communism. so why is it people are always whining about how America is and has been trampling country's sovereignty. but pretty much no mention of the opposing sides?

The US and Russia have both been massively expansionist. China far less so.

Remember recently, when the US press was complaining about China building 'islands' in the South China Sea?

The South what Sea?

And who were the ones complaining? US Naval forces.

What right do the US forces have to be 'policing' the South China Sea?

Get a clue. America aren't the good guys who save everyone from the enemies of America.

Famines, and mass refugee migrations, and terrorism, and wars, happen in lots of places where the US doesn't lift a finger, but make a claim to strategic territory, or block their oil or other resources, and they'll send in the troops to "police the situation" and all "for the good of" the countries that they start shooting up.

the name of a body of water does not mean a country owns it and everything in and around it. does Lake Ontario, solely belong to Ontario and thus Canada? of course not, it is owned by both countries that surround it. so just because it has been called the south China Sea does not give ownership to China. and how can you say China is not expansionist? they have been proving they are for years with their actual expansionist tactics like building military bases in waters that are nowhere even near their country.

and the ones complaining about China and their island bases are countries like the Philippines, Japan, Viet Nam and other countries that China is doing so in. it's not "just the US Naval forces", as you seem to be suggesting.

as for what right does the US have for "policing" the South China sea? seriously? they have that right since it is international water. which means everyone in the entire world is welcome to be there. it is the Chinese who don't have the right to try to control it, and keep anyone out of it.

as for who are the good guys. well that depends on which side you are on. if you like freedom and things like democracy, then the US are the good guys. if you like things like tyranny and communism, then of course to you the US would be the bad guys.

OccamsRazor04

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link

originally posted by: chr0naut

Remember recently, when the US press was complaining about China building 'islands' in the South China Sea?

The South what Sea?

It's South AMERICA. That gives America the right to steal the whole area .. right? That's literally the argument you are making.

Please get a clue before you post.

chr0naut

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

Remember recently, when the US press was complaining about China building 'islands' in the South China Sea?

The South what Sea?

It's South AMERICA. That gives America the right to steal the whole area .. right? That's literally the argument you are making.

Please get a clue before you post.

No, it clearly gives China the right, though.

OccamsRazor04

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 09:45 PM
link

a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

chr0naut

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 10:22 PM
link

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

Precisely as silly as the American argument that China should not build islands in territory that China has claimed at traditional, but is contested by surrounding countries, of which America is not one.

The conflict of the territory in regard to island-building is primarily between the Philippines and China but perhaps agreement will be reached if Duarte wants to court the Chinese?

The US and India, have no place interfering there and should acknowledge the sovereignty of the nations local to the contested area. The US should stick to its non-involvement promise to China, established during the Vietnam war.

edit on 13/2/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

OccamsRazor04

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 07:16 AM
link

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

Precisely as silly as the American argument

It's an international argument, and it's already gone to international court, and China lost. I just posted the map. The fact you don't post an apology and walk away from the argument is telling about your character.

chr0naut

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 04:45 PM
link

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

Precisely as silly as the American argument

It's an international argument, and it's already gone to international court, and China lost. I just posted the map. The fact you don't post an apology and walk away from the argument is telling about your character.

I do get it. But there are a stack of countries there that have no rights to the area, roaming around in warships and who participated in that PCA ruling.

Also, China didn't recognize the PCA and abstained from the court proceedings because there is a arbitration court already established between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, the countries that border on the South China Sea.

edit on 14/2/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

generik

posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 08:42 PM
link

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

Precisely as silly as the American argument

It's an international argument, and it's already gone to international court, and China lost. I just posted the map. The fact you don't post an apology and walk away from the argument is telling about your character.

I do get it. But there are a stack of countries there that have no rights to the area, roaming around in warships and who participated in that PCA ruling.

Also, China didn't recognize the PCA and abstained from the court proceedings because there is a arbitration court already established between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, the countries that border on the South China Sea.

those areas that those so called countries with no rights in the area are in is called international waters, which by international legal definition, have every right to be in those waters in warships, or any other ship. and that is exactly why they are doing it. it is in their country's best interests that they do so. since that area china is illegally claiming is some of the most shipped waters on the planet.

chr0naut

posted on Feb, 19 2020 @ 09:06 PM
link

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

I am glad you realize just how silly your argument was.

Precisely as silly as the American argument

It's an international argument, and it's already gone to international court, and China lost. I just posted the map. The fact you don't post an apology and walk away from the argument is telling about your character.

I do get it. But there are a stack of countries there that have no rights to the area, roaming around in warships and who participated in that PCA ruling.

Also, China didn't recognize the PCA and abstained from the court proceedings because there is a arbitration court already established between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, the countries that border on the South China Sea.

those areas that those so called countries with no rights in the area are in is called international waters, which by international legal definition, have every right to be in those waters in warships, or any other ship. and that is exactly why they are doing it. it is in their country's best interests that they do so. since that area china is illegally claiming is some of the most shipped waters on the planet.

With all the surrounding countries claiming overlapping exclusive economic zones (within 200 nautical miles of the baseline, which is usually the shore) that cover the waters, they are not international waters.

International waters (or high seas) are where there are no valid claims according to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

While there is a small segment of the central part of the sea that is 'international' by the 200 nm. limit, none of the contested areas are in those central regions.