Thursday, October 20, 2016

Preparing is one and going to a full-scale conflict is another. And hence it is good to say that both things does not equate to each other. However, the people see these things as the same and like other arguments there is, there is black and white.


With this matter, the discussion in itself dealt with the arguments people have, saying: "Let us not provoke a strong country by not arming ourselves and hence, leaning on diplomacy." By the mere fact that diplomacy is good to see, let us not dismiss the fact that a nation needs to arm itself in the sense that the word "deterrence" is applied.

But then again, do they know the word "deterrence" among other matters? Maybe yes, maybe no. For those who are not aware of this word, perhaps one must find time reading this article with regards to the matter. Again, preparing is different from going to war. And the difference we see here is big. Sparsely big that the distinction is obvious.

People are often misguided by forces that pushes their own respective agenda. Let be the leftists, the rightists, the conservatives, the centrists and so on. Neglecting the stake of patriotism and the ideals pertaining to it including the militarization of areas where defense are badly needed the most. 

Hence, the ideas pertaining here does not cover of of those of the writer of this blog or those of this blog site. The foreign policy matters and other matters pertaining to it like security and trade are a bit necessity to be a topic to be given so to speak. And the ideas does not cover one person alone. 

[THIS PART IS CITED FROM JOSHUA ORDAZ]

How many times do we have to tell everyone that asserting our rights and (actually buying AND) sending in our assets to the disputed area isn't going to war? Seriously.

Talking with China is one part of the process. Getting in our assets there instead of sitting on our asses is another part that we neglected to do. Hence the goddamn spending on Warfighting assets. That's one thing misguided people and some socalists who joined the Anti-AFP Smear Campaign (Note the word "some." Please.) just because it had some people in its numbers that had done sacrilegious acts in the past.

We also needed to regain lost experiences and learn some more because the way wars are fought definitely changed every decade after the last world war. You can't exactly fight a 22nd Century War with Early 21st Century Equipment and training.

The reason why the Americans give only token amounts of EDAs is because they see that we'd rather beg than fork it in and whine about how we don't really need extravagant stuff. We also try to guilt-trip other countries into helping us, which isn't exactly wise, and not something a rational non-aligned country would do. Being semi-"pabebe" is different from being outright crybaby cheapskates.

We also add to the fact that there's still a standing discrimination against all progressives which then contributes to the continuing Maoist insurgency. Not all communists are warfreaks. Marxists for example. They only shoot you, when they really have to. Maoists follow Mao Tse Tsung's Gun Barrel ideology.

[A bit off topic. I would suggest sending in the PNP-SAF instead of Army Rangers and MARSOGs because counterinsurgency AFAIK is a police job as per a comment from a recent discussion I visited.]

We also add another factor that most people here think that only America can save us. No they don't, No they won't. Swerte niyo naman. (How lucky you are)

Some would rebutt that the US is a goddamn imperialist. News flash. So is the People's Republic of China. Especially after the Cold War and 1991. Licking another imperialist ass isn't exactly non-alignment is it? Remember 1898?

Granted that we cannot match anyone's numbers in terms of firepower. But having sufficient numbers coupled with a number of treaties would make anyone who see Filipinos as invasion target practice think twice about sending in frigates and jets on our side of the pond. That gives us a modicum of assymetrical deterrence, as compared to traditional deterrence inherent with the Cold War between NATO and the Warsaw Pact where we saw the usual arms race between superpowers.

What we want to do is engage in an industrial race between our neighbors instead. Something we ought to have done four decades ago, as well as pursue a National Foreign Policy that actually shows that we mean business, is looking for business partners, and not hunting for employment vacancies.


Lots of lesson readily available to us out there peeps. Just a matter of acquiring those, learning it by heart, and putting it to use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we see in the arguments made is in fact, a fallacy. There are much fallacies there is when it comes in presenting arguments. But the point is, one, obvious fallacy given there is the "False Dichotomy" part.

[THIS PART IS CITED FROM EDRICK MASANGKAY]
From Assortege Facebook.
The bigger picture is this.......

We as a people, tend to think two-dimensionally. Either/or, yes/no, black/white. And so we are utterly incapable of realizing that there are such things as shades of gray, and that there are such things as 3rd options, and 4th options, and 5th options and so on. And the two options that we limit ourselves two tend towards the extremes.

And so anything that is another option, we try to force them to fit into one of the two either/or options. And so suggesting that we can do things like routine patrols and other self-defense measures........a limited mind will try to force fit it into one of the two categories. And so in this case, as far as a lot of people are concerned, taking self-defense measures is the same thing as going to war, when in fact it is not.

Of course, we should be thankful these people can think in two dimensions. A lot of people aren't capable of even doing that, and will insist that there is only one way.

The other thing to consider, is that we have very little understanding of the fact that how we resolve this issue will have an effect on how we deal with others in the future. Accepting a disadventageous deal over the WPS sends the signal to anyone else we negotiate with in the future that we can be cowed, intimidated, and easily coerced into taking the scraps off the table. Keep that in mind when Vietnam and Malaysia come demanding their piece of the WPS. Keep that in mind when the time comes to settle the EEZ overlap between the Philippines and Taiwan. And the Taiwanese have made clear that they want more than just a 50-50 split.

And these are nations that can kick our asses just as easily as the Chinese can. Then again, we still think that we are the Philippines of the 1950s and 1960s, when we were at parity or were even stronger than those other 3 nations. But that's a topic for another time.


Part of it also is that we as a people abhor complications, even if the problem presented to us by its very nature is complicated to begin with. We would rather get it done as quickly possible with the fewest complications. Not realizing that refusing to accept the reality that it really is complicated really just kicks the problem down the road, which then increases the number and scope of the complications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point given here is that the people tends to see black and white and hence, it blurs the argument that deterrence and presence does not equate to war. Again, as said in the beginning, those are two points to discuss and the nature of it is also different to suffice.

War in itself is a costly as well as a bloody one. No one even wanted to have a full-scale conflict unless if it is vital to the nation and the conditions are grown desperate that diplomacy is rendered useless. Presence and deterrence are to be shown that a nation is prepared to protect is sovereignty against other nation's attack, something that the allies wanted to help them more to be much capable to do so. Not arming to war and leaning to diplomacy which includes ass-licking is a bad move which is a no-no to the national interest of the nation which it is detrimental to treason.

If the pursuance of a clear, strong independent foreign policy are to be taken place, it must be applied with arms procurement and asserting our rights is a good thing to do. And let's make this clear: Deterrence and presence does not equate to war. 

1 comment:

  1. china will not back off to our eez and war is possible , why we are negotiating our own eez to china what UN doing to this happening while china is building up militarization to the island in wps. Start To F....k GREEDY CHINA.

    ReplyDelete

Sample Text

Now with the first step complete, a new step arises. And it is not only about blogrolls... Click for more info

Follow by Email

Newsletter

Subscribe now on these links:

Time

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Google+ Badge

Visitors from Nations

Flag Counter

Text Widget

Total Pageviews

Live Pageviews

Find us on Facebook