MANILA: China to Philippines: Quit Scarborough Shoal

Manny Pacquiao wrote:

<quoted text>
The U.S. is the police of the world. When there was a U.S. base in the Philippines, where was china? yuuup.

PACMAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You need the white man back in Subic Bay. You cannot make it on your own. The girls will have to go back to servicing all the foreign troops again. tee hee

Manny Pacquiao wrote:

<quoted text>
The U.S. is the police of the world. When there was a U.S. base in the Philippines, where was china? yuuup.

Juran wrote:

<quoted text>
... What a coincidence! US could not fight against China and they owe too much money, which is the reason they maintained neutual. If they had the money...

Zenom wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm ... Where US dollars come from ?
The Fed have a USD Printing Machine !
BTW, about half of USD reserves that China holds belong to foreigners (such as FDI ...)
==========
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT is The DNA of PROGRESS
==========
Zenom

PACMAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You need the white man back in Subic Bay. You cannot make it on your own. The girls will have to go back to servicing all the foreign troops again. tee hee

Juran wrote:

I guess this is the final blow for Philippines's claim. However, I do want to point out that if there's such an article in China, it would never have been published.
<quoted text>

Juran wrote:

<quoted text>
If U.S. is the "police" of the world, China should have a "police" station then. As far as I know, China has no such police station. No wonder. Those Chinese are so "unlawful".
Congratulations to Philippines as they got a "police station" there. Simply dial 911 and they would get their Scarborough Shoal. What an easy solution!

Cev wrote:

From now on, as long as I am defending this forum,(which i would also ask some readers to help me in my absence) i will mark all useless posts from chinese 50 cent'rs as "Impertinent, immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion."

Judged:

1

1

uncle fargo wrote:

<quoted text>The article was reprinted here. It was in English. I don't know if it was printed in Chinese. So you guessed wrong.

Judged:

1

1

1

uncle fargo wrote:

<quoted text>The article was reprinted here. It was in English. I don't know if it was printed in Chinese. So you guessed wrong.

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they would uncle..
They guy who wrote that is actually a Chinese who took up a Filipino name. Maybe China paid him to do it, idk..

Judged:

1

1

1

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow! It's Uncle Fargo xD but uncle i think all the chinamen ran away already..

Judged:

1

1

1

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they would uncle..
They guy who wrote that is actually a Chinese who took up a Filipino name. Maybe China paid him to do it, idk..

Judged:

2

2

1

red dragon wrote:

<quoted text>you know this how?

Judged:

1

1

1

uncle fargo wrote:

<quoted text>Last report was they had increased the number of (unarmed) ships.

Cev wrote:

Ok let me explain further since your little brain seems to be already strained to its maximum capacity.
The Philippine constitution is designed in such a way that it is not easy to just change the constitution, not like China's being a communist country. If you truly are a foreigner, you would understand this.(which you do not, hence i doubt that you are one)
The costs of changing the constitution requires a lot of money, time and will undergo a lot of controversies as the filipino people are very sensitive to this issue as proven during the time of arroyo when she tried to change the constitution.
Therefore, we use the presidential decree (during the time of marcos) and the republic acts (during the time of cory) to reinforce certain issues not addressed in our constitution.
This is equally effective as when we submit these things to the united nations, it is very legal, very much within our rights, and can be used as evidence in court.
Despite the constitution being limited to certain boundaries, probably because the original constitution used te treaty of paris as a basis for the territorial boundaries, it does not mean that's the limit.
For example, the philippines recently acquired benham rise as part of philippine territory. Is that included in the constitution? No, it does not. But it is part of our territory as reinforced by a republic act and a united nations decision.
In the same line of reasoning, scarborough, as well as other disputed areas in the west philippine sea are part of philippine sovereign territory due to historical evidences, a presidential decree as well as a republic act, and the united nations law of the sea. All these factors reinforces the philippine's claim on the disputed territory.
This explanation should satisfy any properly educated man, and if it still does not satisfy you then you have proven yourself to be the dimwitted chinaman that majority in this forum believe you are.

old china wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a lot of words to avoid answering the question as to how come your constitution doesn't recognise Scarborough Shoal as being partt of your territory.

Cev wrote:

<quoted text>
Last report here was about the fishing ban. Probably prepping to leave if the fishing boats haven't left yet.
Personally, i would have preferred they stay. Rainy season's coming, would've loved to see them boats hit the shoal and the debris scatter in the sea should a typhoon pass by ;)