Will the US defend Philippines if China attacks?

[beijingwalker]

---

---

Is that so?

Yes, your an armchair general my a$$ indeed.

Not long ago, somebody fools like you and underestimate "small country" and in returned its got invaded by ............ then that "small country" makes Chinese nightmare like Nanking.

instead of talking something happened almost a hundred years ago,why not talking something happened a thousand years ago?

I heard that Uncle Sam is moving B1 bombers to the Pacific, and they were bombing exercises on a target assumed being China's lands.

assume can only make an as. out of you and me.ha

[ChineseTiger1986]

I heard that Uncle Sam is moving B1 bombers to the Pacific, and they were bombing exercises on a target assumed being China's lands.

B1 is a useless obsolete product of the Cold War, China is even ready to tackle against B2.

[dunhill]

before that can happen,the war probably would've been long over,and those Philippinos probably don't even know how to use those weapons,basic training is needed at least,otherwise those are just like moving targets.

No ... no ... no

Philippines Army's are training with U.S every single years and its using U.S weapons as a nation standard weapons required. What make you think that will hard for Philippines Navy's, Philippines Air Force when they have all in hands?

More than that, Philippines is islands countries and people used sea transport as a land countries using car. They are have experience than Chinese Mainland.

What is a difference when Philippines people normally use small boat to become a big o boat? Does it need to take long days to learn how to operate it? Chinese people does !!!

[Rechoice]

BBC News - Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia

"Asean talks: US and China pledge to co-operate on Asia
12 July 2012 Last updated at 04:25 ET

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi have said their countries will co-operate on Asia issues.


Mrs Clinton says the US will not ''take sides'' in regional disputes in Asia
...
The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed."

Not take sides doesn't mean not interfere to stop the war. I think politician in Peking understood English better than you.

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

If they attack China, we will help China to shoot down bombers. We have experience shot down stealth super-bombers B52 of the U.S.


The remnant of a stealth super-bomber B52 in Hanoi today.

[Rechoice]

If they attack China, we will help China to shoot down bombers. We have experience shot down stealth super-bombers B52 of the U.S.

no, bro. we protect us first, he, he.

[dunhill]

Beijingwalker:

instead of talking something happened almost a hundred years ago,why not talking something happened a thousand years ago?

Viet Nam is a giant carrier and its never sink, from that carrier Viet Nam jets can rule the sky in SCS and all its needed just taking out Air Refueler then China will cries me a river.

[Martian2]

Not take sides doesn't mean not interfere to stop the war. I think politician in Peking understood English better than you.

Not taking sides means you're on your own. Try looking up her words in an English dictionary. Obviously, you're a complete dolt.

Clinton's statement reported by BBC: The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.

How the hell did you conclude this means the U.S. will interfere to stop a war? She just said the U.S. has no territorial claims and couldn't give a flying frack.

[ahfatzia]

Not taking sides means you're on your own. Try looking up her words in an English dictionary. Obviously, you're a complete dolt.

Clinton's statement reported by BBC: The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.

How the hell did you conclude this means the U.S. will interfere to stop a war? She just said the U.S. has no territorial claims and couldn't give a flying frack.

And yet they got a bunch of 'thanks' for idiotic posts. Go figure.

[kawaraj]

that's not even a question.

the US won't endanger its own land, people and glorious cities by defending anther country, for heaven's sake.

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Not taking sides means you're on your own. Try looking up her words in an English dictionary.

Clinton's statement reported by BBC: The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.

Obviously, you're a complete dolt.

You are a dolt more and more foolish if you believe of her saying.

[Martian2]

You are a dolt more and more foolish if you believe of her saying.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Are you claiming Clinton is lying? That's complete crap.

The United States doesn't have to engage in lies. If the U.S. wants to fight you, it will threaten you in very clear terms (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.).

You are completely nuts. Secretary of State Clinton is stating official U.S. government policy.

Did you miss her reasoning? She said the U.S. has no territorial claims in the South China Sea and is not a participant.

Are you claiming that she's lying and the U.S. has territorial claims in the South China Sea? I hate you idiotic Vietnamese. You keep discussing crap. I want to discuss facts.

1. Everybody should be able to agree that the U.S. has no territorial claims in the South China Sea (as enunciated by Clinton).

2. Since the U.S. has no territorial claims, the U.S. has no reason to engage in a major war against the world's second largest military spender.

3. If you want to fight over islands in the South China Sea, that's your business. The U.S. doesn't care.

This makes perfect sense. Why are you suggesting she's lying? America is a superpower and does not need to resort to lying. I think you Vietnamese are idiots and brain dead.

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Are you claiming Clinton is lying? That's complete crap.

The United States doesn't have to engage in lies. If the U.S. wants to fight you, it will threaten you in very clear terms (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.).

You are completely nuts. Secretary of State Clinton is stating official U.S. government policy.

Did you miss her reasoning? She said the U.S. has no territorial claims in the South China Sea and is not a participant.

Are you claiming that she's lying and the U.S. has territorial claims in the South China Sea? I hate you idiotic Vietnamese. You keep discussing crap. I want to discuss facts.

There is nothing new: the United States always says that she does not take sides in disputes in the SCS, but, always "but", she has a national interest in ensuring maritime safety in the SCS.
She did not lie.

[Martian2]

There is nothing new: the United States always says that she does not take sides in disputes in the SCS, but, always "but", she has a national interest in ensuring maritime safety in the SCS.
She did not lie.

Maritime safety means safe passage for U.S. ships. Do you understand the phrase "maritime safety"?

What the hell does "maritime safety" for U.S. ships have to do with Vietnamese disputes with China over South China Sea islands? She specifically ruled that out of the purview of American interests.

[Rechoice]

---

---

Not taking sides means you're on your own. Try looking up her words in an English dictionary. Obviously, you're a complete dolt.

Clinton's statement reported by BBC: The US has no territorial claims in the region and will not ''take sides'' in disputes, she stressed.

How the hell did you conclude this means the U.S. will interfere to stop a war? She just said the U.S. has no territorial claims and couldn't give a flying frack.

Idiot.
USA don't has territorial claims in Middle East, but invasion of Saddam Hussein in to Kuwait was good chance for US to take control on Irak. You cant do policy with your low IQ, bro.