2011-10-21 (China Military News cited from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/15803/philippines-apologizes-to-china-over-sea-accident") -- An official said the Philippine Navy has apologized to China for accidentally ramming one of its fishing boats near the disputed Spratly Islands in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
Defense Department spokesman Zosimo Paredes said Wednesday the navy has informed the Chinese Embassy of the incident and apologized for it.
He said a navy ship on Tuesday spotted a Chinese fishing vessel encroaching on Philippine waters near Reed Bank, which the Philippines claims is within its waters. The vessel was towing about 35 smaller boats.
When the navy ship went to investigate, a problem with its steering mechanism caused it to become entangled with one of the smaller boats.
The Chinese vessel then left, abandoning the smaller boats. Paredes said no one was hurt and that there was little damage.
October 21st, 2011 at 5:58 pm
The Philippine Navy apologized but not the Philippine government. Secretary del Rosario said there was no need to.
Do you buy the navy's excuse of the WW11 era ship loosing its steering that's why the mother boat was rammed? hahaha! We use WW11 boats for kamikaze purposes and then say "ooops I'm sorry cuz I lost my steering! What if it was one of those Dongguan destroyers were around, they probably would have fired a missile and sunk it!
Chinese and Vietnamese incursions are common. They even go to the Tubbataha Reef which is a World Heritage site in the middle of Sulu Sea and catch the most endangered species like the Napoleon wrasses, Giant clams, rare giant sea turtles. Tubbataha Reef is a marine park and is the most diverse ecosystem in the world. And the Chinese poachers use dynamite to destroy the habitat. they are so brave but they get caught all the time with their pants down.
There is no sorry for those criminals! The rest of the 35 boats that was left behind will have to be retrieved by bail. Just like a criminal!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
10
October 21st, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Ho hum. The only other ship you have dates back to the 1960s. No one gives a sh!t whether you apologize or not. Your navy issues an apology for ramming a civilian boat. And you come here to save face for that apology. No one cares.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
7
October 21st, 2011 at 7:38 pm
We will ram your Dongguan likewise, you intruders. You come and steal our resources.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
10
October 21st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
HAHA. Thats a lot of confidence.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 21st, 2011 at 11:36 pm
James.... u talking many many.... The Chinese will be around long after Uncle Sam is gone.... and u pinoy dogs will be sitting in the dog house when that day comes along....
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
8
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
14
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Oh by the way, I forgot the human fetuses you chew to give you brain powers! yuck!
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
12
October 22nd, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Thats blood libel man. Overseas Chinese make up about 50 percent of all foreign investment in China. But we are pretty patriotic towards China and thus the reason why we do it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
5
October 23rd, 2011 at 12:23 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
12
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:07 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
13
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:53 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
12
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:45 am
You are comparing hypersonic ICBMs to subsonic low flying bombers. If both triggers were pulled at the same time. The ICBM would obviously land the soonest. Wiping out america off the map.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
4
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:06 am
Sam, you have not gone to war with the Philippines and the US and you are so arrogant?. You threatened to plant your oil rig this July 80km from Palawan and the North American filipinos protested all over and your balls got scared. You guys started running with your tails between your legs back to your potholes. You have all the nuclear capabilities. We don't have the navy nor the air force. But we have the resolve to stick our arnis sticks in your assholes if you ever set foot in the Philippines. Yes, keep up with your one-child policy and keep killing your girl babies (400 million so far and counting). Eventually we will Christianized the whole China so they won't to have immoral perverts like you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
10
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:41 am
Yeah, the B-2's may not be 1,500 mph but you cannot even detect and know that they are coming to wipe you out off the map so what difference does is make?
Wiping America off the map? The moment your so-called hypersonic missiles leave their silos, the SAC is alerted and Tridents are put on standby, B-1s, B-2's and B-52's are immediately manned and ready to go with nuclear bombs. ICBM with MIRVs are on full red alert. By then you better learn to pray like a Christian 'cuz you're heading to hell!!!!! We, in the Philippines will watch the sunset lighten' up, like balls of fire! May your soul rest in peace!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
11
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 am
I remember the english having locked onto the b2 bomber over at airshows in the uk. Its a pretty big plane. I doubt its invisible to radar. And you imagine that only the us would be allowed to fire first. The b2 would never reach Chinese ICBMs before getting intercepted, while ICBMs reaching B2s on the runway would be very real conclusion.
China is the largest economy in the world. Outfiring ICBMs at the americans is not a difficult exercise.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
8
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:54 am
Cut the bullshit with the abortion statistics. You are suggesting that China's natural population should be at 1.7 billion instead of 1.3. You keep talking out of your ass. But the truth is, China would nuke the shit out of you, whether you be in america or the philippines.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
8
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:56 am
Largest economy? 70% of your production are by foreign owned corporations? 9,000 per family income? 92nd place in the world? Remember now 500 million are still dirt poor. So don't brag!
Out firing the Americans? If your Russia I can understand. You have not reached that level yet!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
12
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:59 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
12
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:16 am
How is that even possible?
Country/Region of Origin Amount Invested 2008
($ billion) Amount Invested 2009
($ billion) Year-on-Year Growth**
(%)
Hong Kong 41.0 54.0 31.6
Taiwan 1.9 6.6 245.7
Japan 3.7 4.1 12.7
Singapore 4.4 3.9 -12.4
United States 2.9 3.6 21.5
Overseas Chinese makeup the bulk of China's foreign investment. And even then those numbers are small compared to the over GDP. HK invested 54 billion in one year. the us only invested in 3.6 billion. Compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars China purchases in us bonds. Those numbers mean nothing.
Crude steel production (million tonnes): — World 1,351.3 1326.5 1,219.7 1,413.6
1 China People's Republic of China 494.9 500.3 573.6 626.7
— European Union European Union 209.7 198.0 139.1 172.9
2 Japan Japan 120.2 118.7 87.5 109.6
3 United States United States 98.1 91.4 58.2 80.6
4 Russia Russia 72.4 68.5 60.0 67.0
This is a list of countries by motor vehicle production based on OICA accessed in April 2011. Figures include passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, minibuses, trucks, buses and coaches.[1]
Rank Country/Region 2010[2] 2005[3] 2000[4]
— World 77,857,705 66,482,439 58,374,162
01 China China 18,264,667 5,708,421 2,069,069
— European Union European Union 17,102,459[5] 18,176,860[6] 17,142,142[7]
02 Japan Japan 9,625,940 10,799,659 10,140,796
03 United States United States 7,761,443 11,946,653 12,799,857
04 Germany Germany 5,905,985 5,757,710 5,526,615
05 South Korea South Korea 4,271,941 3,699,350 3,114,998
"China is the world's largest producer of gold. It beat its previous record, the Chinese gold production rose from 285 to 300 tons...
Australia is the second largest gold producer in the world with 215 tonnes...
South Africa has lost its place of No. 1 gold production in 2007. It is now the third largest in the world with the USA"
You know China produces more ICBMs than you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
11
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:45 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
14
October 23rd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
@Tienfei
Dude.. you're dreaming about your Chinese nuclear deterrent - you talk as though China is the preeminent nuclear country in the world - but it's a nuclear minnow
it doesn't even have a functioning SSBN fleet - has no decent long range strike bombers and a handful of long range missiles
Go do some reading....
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
11
October 23rd, 2011 at 10:02 pm
China has been producing nuclear weapons since 1964. Thats almost a half a century ago. To have only a handful of nuclear weapons and ICBMs since then wouldnt be very believable. China is the world's largest economy, so more than likely they have more industrial power to produce ICBMs than the united states.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
7
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:56 pm
Is that it...????
is that your reasoning! What a idiot you are!
You are more informed than I originally thought.
From 1964 to the mid 1990s China was a third world country - it's nuclear deterrent was in a state of total disrepair with almost zero funding. These PLA 2nd Artillery men were living in almost poverty, maintaining missiles that were hopelessly outdated, some even defunct. Admirably, these soldiers did an honorable job considering they were barely funded but the they could not maintain the force adequately.
It's only since the 2000s that China's nuclear missile deterrent has had anything like the funding a First World, nuclear player needs - so has of course been playing catch up on an epic scale to bring its aging deterrent into the 21stC. But most of the finance has gone into upgrading the old pieces that could be saved to integrate them into an informationized system - Plus decommission all the missiles that couldn't be saved from the years of neglect. Just like every other department in the PLA the missile force was also subject to downsizing. (Invest in what's good, get rid of the crap) This is a significant factor in why the Chinese deterrent hasn't been exponentially increasing year on year.
On top of this - China unfortunately has very little uranium to make huge amounts of war heads - unlike the US and Russia which does and still has lots - China is feverishly trying to come up with new ways of extracting Uranium- such as from shale - but this has to be divided up with the civilian power plants to feed the Chinese economy. So, it can't be just used to make all of your fantasy bombs you keep bragging about
Seriously, your logic is like that of a small child and is contrary to simple facts that are well known... even to PLA analysts in China.
China probably has about 100 missiles that have the potential to reach the US - which is less than both France and UK. It probably has a few hundred more short and mid range nukes too. Giving it a total number in the region of 300+ By it's own admission the US has 5013 live war heads that can be delivered from a suite of independent platforms - reduced from a Cold War high of 37,000
There is talk that China is secretly increasing its nuclear capability but this is not as easy as you like to brag... it's not like you can have thousands of little workers making nuclear bombs every year and stashing them away for a rainy day in a bunker - the production and maintenance for these missiles makes it prohibitive both from a financial and human resource point of view. Plus, China would have to massively increase it's military budget to have 1000s of nukes on hand. Something you just don't get for 100+billion dollars a year, considering China has to look after a 2.3million man force. Plus, China's missiles production is absorbed in creating conventional missiles to strike Taiwan, so it just doesn't have the bandwidth to make the nuclear deterrent you keep talking about.
On top of this, all of China's nukes are land based, severely limiting its second strike capability.
So, you see, your argument that China has been making nukes for 25years so must have 1000s just isn't held up by facts on the ground and lives only in your wet dreams
China is a nuclear minnow that's a fact.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
10
October 24th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Tienfei, that's production you are quoting. According to International Monetary Fund China ranks #99 in GDP per capita. Don't let that #2 GDP fool you! You are still woefully poor. That ranking puts you behind El Salvador (#92), Albania (#94), and Namibia (#98). While China’s cities are relatively affluent, the large migrant population (211 million) and the large rural population (732 million) are often overlooked in calculations of China’s economic prosperity. The gap between rich and poor is widening every day, to the detriment of hundreds of millions. Today, 36% of China’s population (468 million people) live below $2/day. Check out their website.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
10
October 24th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Pebble, you said it right. Your explanation was downright awesome. That should tape up Sam S(hi....) mouth. And tienfei.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 12:32 am
it's just simple knowledge that can be known to anyone who takes the time to find out.
maintaining a nuclear deterrent is a very costly and technical business and isn't as simple as some on this site like to brag
As you rightly point out - China is still mostly a Third World Country and has not been consistently investing in its nuclear deterrent since 1964 like Tienfei likes to say. This is not speculation- it's fact - go research it for yourself
If China finds both the means (by way of more uranium) and investment to rapidly increase it's deterrent it will quickly find itself in another nuclear arms race with the US and Russia - but seeing as the US has already decommissioned over 30,000 nuclear bombs it would be an impossible task for China to ever catch up and be on parity with both Russia or the US.
Despite Tienfei's bragging, a nuclear solution really isn't a good option for the PLA - that's why they're the only country that has a no-first strike capability - cus they're nuclear minnows - the size of their missiles could never be cohesive to the the likes of US or Russia
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Rank Country/Region Uranium production
(tonnes U)[1] Uranium Production
(thousands pounds U3O8)[2] Percentage of
World Production
World 50,572 131,482
1 Kazakhstan Kazakhstan 13,820
2 Canada Canada 10,173
3 Australia Australia 7,982
4 Namibia Namibia 4,626
5 Russia Russia 3,564 9,226
6 Niger Niger 3,243 8,431
7 Uzbekistan Uzbekistan 2,429
8 United States United States 1,453
9 Ukraine Ukraine 840
10 China China 750
The us produces about 1400 tons of uranium per year. Twice the the number of uranium production in China. China is also the world's largest uranium importer. With an annual uranium import level almost about equal to the total amount of uranium produced in the us. But a warhead like the tsar bomb would only require around 100 kgs of uranium. With an annual production rate of 750 tonnes and its annual import rate, that would be enough to produce thousands tsar size bombs for one year.
China could easily mass produce the ICBMs by simply printing Yuan. Not that China would have to, but there would also be over 3 trillion in foreign reserves.
Rank Country/Monetary Authority Foreign exchange reserves
(Millions of USD) Figures as of
— World (sum of all countries) N/A --
1 People's Republic of China
3,197,000 Jun 2011[1]
2 Japan 1,137,809 Jun 2011[2]
- European Union Eurosystem
(EU member states which have adopted the euro, incl. ECB) 886,355 July 2011[2]
3 Russia 516,800 Sep 2011[3]
It costs the us between 7 to 70 million to produce each missile. Price figures in China would most likely only be a fraction of that. But even if we assume Chinese prices were equivalent to those in the us. We are still looking at 10s of thousands of missiles.
The materials to have outproduced the us in ICBMs and nuclear warheads is definitely there. And that is also true financially.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
12
October 24th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
12
October 24th, 2011 at 12:46 am
I mean No First Strike Doctrine - Not "capability"
When you only have a handful of missiles, you can't credibly have a first strike capability that can be used coercively on another nuclear opponent - because you don't have enough to create a decisive first strike victory and take out the opponents second strike ability
this again is logical
China uses these No First Strike doctrine as though it's purely based on goodwill... but it is also based on simple facts and numbers - it doesn't have enough missiles to coerce the likes of the US or Russia.
therefore it's missiles can only be second strike.
Of course, if the likes of Tienfei had his way China would be using its small number of missiles as coercive weapons in a first strike - but he would be quickly be found wanting when there just simply isn't enough missiles to neutralize the enemy.
As I pointed out in another post... nuking cities is a luxury - before this can take place you need to eliminate the enemy's ability to attack you. China missiles barely stretch to covering all these targets and so would be pretty ineffective at bringing the US to its knee before it could launch a devastating second strike from its SSBNs... which of course China practically none!
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
7
October 24th, 2011 at 12:47 am
I just showed you that had the industrial and the financial means to outproduce the united states in ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Everything is there. While a nuclear war would be costly. China would definitely win it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 12:53 am
@ Tienfei
Your figures only prove my point further- China DOESN'T have the nukes you keep talking about.
It is desperately trying to buy up uranium - but it HASN"T BEEN PRODUCING NUKES SINCE 1964 like you keep bragging.
You can dream up all the reasons you want why you believe IT COULD - but the fact is, it hasn't and it isn't!
Of course, you're in the camp that China can have 10 battle fleets purely because it has the man power, the industrial production and the money and ignore the actual realities in actually creating such things.
You're just a BIG DREAMER Tienfei and your head is not in reality despite all the numbers you keep copy pasting of wikipedia
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 12:54 am
Haha - "While a nuclear war would be costly. China would definitely win it."
By what degree do you win an all out nuclear war?
You're an idiot!
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 12:58 am
You arent making any sense. You claimed that China lacked the domestic Uranium to produce these weapons. But domestic production was more than enough to do so. Its import levels are also quite high, which would further legitimize that point. Even if we assumed there was no domestic production of Uranium, China's single annual import would have been more than enough.
Having ten battle fleets alone would have required that the shipbuilding capacity actually existed. Manpower alone wouldnt have decided it. But the Uranium capacity did and does exist. And that is also true financially.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
10
October 24th, 2011 at 12:59 am
You win so long as you kill more of them than they kill you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 1:07 am
Tienefei
Here's another search you can do on Wikipedia so you can understand this situation more..
go read up about depleted uranium for weapons then come back to me.
Aren't you lucky... you're learning lots of new things this fine afternoon aren't you
ok... so now go to wikipedia and do more reading and learning
Or if you really wanted to learn real things... why not get a book
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
7
October 24th, 2011 at 1:10 am
Oh.. and your perverse idea that killing more people is the winner...
Well, if a country of 300million had a nuclear war with a contry of 1.5 billion, most of which a unprotected peasants, by your f*cked up reckoning I think you'll find that China would come out worse...
dude - where is your head at? How could you even talk about killing that many people as though it was some how glorious
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
7
October 24th, 2011 at 1:13 am
Am off for a run...
Tienfei - enjoy your reading... I expect you to be a Depleted Uranium expert by the time I get back so am looking forward to further nonsensical arguments proving a point that doesn't even exist
Consider yourself SLAM DUNKED!
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 1:47 am
No americans are protected in a nuclear war. Most live in cities and suburbs. You are trying to estimate the total amount of production of nuclear warheads based on the total amount of reported and estimated tonnes of depleted uranium produced. But this hardly answers the question as to how many ICBMs and nuclear warheads actually has. The us produces about 100,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy. But China produces only 10,000 megawatts despite having produced and imported more uranium than the total amount of uranium produced and imported in the united states.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 1:56 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
10
October 24th, 2011 at 2:37 am
Tienfei
You are totally DEBUNKED!
You know nothing about nuclear weapons
You didn't even know that uranium needed to depleted to make missiles - otherwise you would not have come up with the import figures for uranium and would have immediately jumped to DU as this is what counts
Your kind of ignorance is dangerous and harmful
Go do more reading and come back to this site with an adult appreciation of nuclear weapons
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 5:37 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
10
October 24th, 2011 at 7:16 am
@SamS
I'm not hating China - I live in China
I'm just telling yah that the nuclear deterrence that Tienfei rants about isn't there - that's not hate, it's just a fact. it aint nitpicking - it's just the truth of it. Go find out for yourself... or you can just believe the likes of Tienfei and not find out for yourself - believe what you want but Tienfei has been proven to be a fool
I'm not the one bragging about nuclear Armageddon as though it's something to be proud of like many people here
And erh, Sam S - I think you'll find that China is controlled by 1% Elites also - but the other 99% can't complain for fear of having their lives destroyed.
But.. I'm happy for China to be strong and developed - but when the likes of Tienfei start ranting about how China will nuke the hell out of the US - well that's just darn stupid and isn't based in any facts
school boy fantasies
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 8:04 am
Pebble. You need to stop screwing around. Your whole basis was that China lacked the domestic capacity to produce enough uranium to outproduce more nuclear weapons than the united states. But domestic production was over 750 tons a year. That alone was more uranium to produce more nuclear weapons than anyone has ever seen. Then you have 17,000 tons being imported every year on top of the 750 ton domestic capacity. Which is even more capacity to make nukes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
7
October 24th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Your whole beginning premise was flawed from the very start.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
8
October 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@Tienfei
You're DEBUNKED - You're a proven idiot who knows nothing and is unwilling to learn anything, despite facts - anyone on this site with half a brain and a modicum of common sense will see you've been made to look a fool
I rest my case
Ciao!
Have a nice life!
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
9
October 24th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Pebbles you need to stop avoiding the subject. Your whole premise is wrong. You thought the capacity to outproduce the united states didnt exist. But with a 750 ton annual uranium capacity. That was more than enough to produce the nukes necessary. With the additional 17,000 tons uranium imported. That would add even more materials needed to convert towards nuclear warheads. All in all, the problem wasnt that there was too few uranium. Total numbers far exceeded the necessary requirements.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
7
October 24th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
@ pebble pilipina the idiot who knowingly china nuclear capability, you're the person the Philippines is very stupid, you know that pebble, china conceal its nuclear weapons capability, the pebble pilipina you stupid, you will defecate and urinate in your pants, when China began to beat the Philippines with its nuclear weapons, because the Philippines is a legitimate target for nuclear beat, china will not be a nuclear strike on a country that does not have nuclear as long as countries do not become slaves America, the Philippines is one of the American slave, therefore, now you can say nuclear capability small china, it's time you'll see the Chinese nuclear capability in the Philippines cities, and how the nation in the Philippines destroyed, you nation pilipina poor countries who do not know at a profit, you now this country can go in peace because of china, without china, economy the Philippines collapse following the Americans, that is why, why the Philippines navy generals were terrified to defecate in his pants, so know that the hit was a fishing boat china, to the hasty rush to apologize to the Chinese navy,
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
4
October 26th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
All you got was a sorry from the Philippine Navy but they rammed your boat and took 35 of your little boats. Who do you think won? You need an abacus, pea brain! Yeah go ahead and pull the trigger, hahahahhahahaha! Ya ain't got balls!
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
6
October 26th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
It was a civilian vessel. And ramming while provocative, is employed to act aggressive without actually resorting to a shooting war.
Soviets rammed the yorktown while operating in the black sea.
"While claiming the “right of innocent passage” through Soviet territorial waters, USS Yorktown was rammed by the Soviet frigate Bezzavetni"
Chinese submarine rammed the sonar array of the USS Mccain
"Sub collides with sonar array towed by U.S. Navy ship
SUBMARINE
June 12, 2009|From Barbara Starr CNN"
The english and iceland rammed each other during the cod wars.
"the Royal Navy deployed warships and tugboats to act as a deterrent against any future harassment of British fishing crews by the Icelandic craft, resulting in direct confrontations between Icelandic patrol vessels and British warships, which included ramming incidents".
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
3
October 27th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
LOL, you say the Philippines hit a 1 and another 35 arrested, do you know? , The Philippines military pay compensation amounting to 5 million dollars to the china! , You're a rotten pea brain, it can not count, let alone think
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
4
October 27th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Oh. So China paid a bail of 5 million pesos to bail out the 35 boats. Wow!
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
6
October 29th, 2011 at 11:51 am
By the way Killer Pilipina, by naming yourself as such, you are labeling yourself as a killer of Filipina women (Pilipina-in Spanish you address women by changing the letter o to a). So, that's what you are a male chauvinist pig serial killer!
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
6
October 29th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Philipino are weaklings. They are just dogs for the US to use. Those rich resources belong to no one. Only the powerfully one is the rightful owner.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
5
October 29th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Chillax guys. Whats with the racial and personalised slurs?? I dont think getting boats rammed by any bloody minded military gun-ho is a fun thing for any civi.
Philippine is a free country true enough and my company has a large branch there. My colleagues there all fun to chat to and seem genuinely happy to lead a normal life. As an Australian born Chinese, Spratley is an issue I sometimes chat to my PH colleagues about during lunch, and we all agree its very sensitive, in that exposure is given to every single little detail. I think basic rights of seafarers should be observed by all nations? Especially, non-aggression against civilians.
PH government did a very good thing in resolving this quickly instead of letting it bubble in the already big cauldron of rancour already stewing down that sector. Lets not be written down in history as a generation who started WWIII over 35tiny boats aite? :)))
@James: Sometimes you raise some interesting points but please refrain from personalised slanders against a certain individual. Its very unsightly on a public forum. Dude. We are all proud of our respective heritage and have our own beliefs. You have a right to argue your point, but things like "male chauvinist pig serial killer!" is too much detail. No one really cares to read about these things and Im sure you have better things to do than swear online?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
2
October 30th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Lotz, I'm just responding to their racial comments. I don't even start it. See what their names are and it tells you what their motives are. Mr. Sam S is the same. They have too much hatred since we have challenged them in the Sprtlys. As soon as you try to debunk their claim and arrogance, they start belittling you and start talking about nuking your country as if it's just a flick of a switch.
I don't even want to venture in the profane languange arena but if they want to be nasty then I'll let them have a few.
If you look at the thread, I started making comments based on what the papers tells us. All were factual. Its funny but those old PH navy ships are just that, very old. Nothing was insulting of what I said. Also, it is very true that Chinese poachers are always caught in the Philippine waters and they get the endangered species and fish in restricted places like the Tubattaha Reef, a World Heritage Site using dynamite to stun the fish. I just want to make aware to the readers that its not just the boat and the 35 little boats that is involved here. It is also their criminal act. What the heck are they doing in the Philippine waters(83 km away)? Why don't they fish near Hainan. or even near their islands in the Spratly's.
Militarily we are no match. But we are not assholes either commiting criminal acts and try to justify it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
4
October 30th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
5
October 31st, 2011 at 1:23 am
I never said we were kicking out the Vietnamese. I said there have been numerous incursions including in the Tubbataha Reef which is a World Heritage site. Recently last June there were 122 Vietnamese fishermen caught in the Southern tip of Palawan called Balabac Island, collecting rare and endangered sea shells.
The Spratly issue is a different issue. Yes, you can't kick them out but I never discussed that.
On the Christianized idea, I think you missed my point. President George Bush went to an underground Evangelical christian service in Beijing when he went there to prove a point. The underground Christian movement in china is the fastest in the world. If you are an evangelical Christian you would know what I'm talking about. Apparently you are not for you don't even know this exist. They estimate that there is as much as 100 million strong, bigger than Falun Gong movement and Communist Party.
South Korea was transformed to be a majority Christian country in 50 years. You don't have to convert everybody. There is no such thing. Even Iran cannot Islamized the whole of Iran, in spite of its iron-handed regime. All you need is a majority.
I've been trolling these website for almost a year now. I enjoy it but I encounter weirdo's also. You just have to give some of them a dose of their own medicine. There are also a lot of fake, trying to speak Tagalog from Google..hahahahaha!. Tienfei is cool. He likes to nuke everyone. LOL!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
October 31st, 2011 at 8:13 am
You got to stop that ridiculous claim about underground churches and secret christians. Chinese arent christians and they arent likely to ever be.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
October 31st, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Tienfei, it's not an exaggeration. Here's a lick of a sugar stick!
http://www.christianpost.com/news/exclusive-world-evangelical-alliance-on-why-china-visit-didn-t-include-house-churches-43593/
In 2008, the official number is 20 million in the Official Protestant churches and 10 million in the Official Catholic Church. According to China Aid Association, Ye Xiaowen, the director of the government body which supervises all religions in China, said privately that the figure was indeed as much as 130 millions in early 2008. The claim was denied by Mrs. Guo Wei, director of the Foreign Affairs Department in Beijing[citation needed]. Some bloggers had attributed the report to the official Xinhua News Agency, which denied having reported anything such. According to John Micklethwait "a conservative guess" (as at the end of 2008) "is that there are at least 65 million Protestants in China and 12 million Catholics"
I guess there is some validity to it. This was 2008.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
October 31st, 2011 at 10:43 pm
"The claim was denied by Mrs. Guo Wei, director of the Foreign Affairs Department in Beijing. Some bloggers had attributed the report to the official Xinhua News Agency, which denied having reported anything such.[43]"
You forgot to quote the rest of the paragraph.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
November 6th, 2011 at 6:09 am
James, you did say that you want all chinese to be Christianize. Nonoetheless, a majority of them shall speed up democratization and finally conjole the yanks to end it's military encirclement of china. Thus, abandoning their claims on our Kalayaan grp. You pretend to not know the facts Re- Viet land grabbing one of property. Sa kanila na lang ba yun ?
Finally, I wacth the news and know about so-called
"underground" churches, actually they're practically left to their own devices with exception against those who do illegally public demos.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
December 15th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
What's with the fighting? Pinoys and Chinese are in good relations.. i know some chinese friends
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
April 11th, 2012 at 1:02 am
It's in the news now. Another bunch of Chinese fishermen got caught this time in the Scarborough Shoals 124 miles west of the Philippines Bataan peninsula. And there is a standoff between our ex-Hamilton and the Chinese Coast Guards. They have the same catch, illegal catches such as wrasses, giant clams, rare live sharks green marine turles. I heard the Philippine Navy has pictures and were ready to apprehend the 9 boats until the Chinese coast guards intervened and there is a standoff. A Chinese destroyer is on the way and the US Marines and their F-18 are on a blue alert. P-3c orions and E-2 trackers were on the way to monitor the destroyer sent by PLAN. That is within the EEZ of the Philippines. I remember we used to use the shoal as a target practice as far as I can remember during the 70's and the 80's. The US Navy never heard of any claim until 2009 when they concocted the dotted line scam.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1