主题：中国驻菲使馆已经发出在菲人员出行预警了 -- 葡萄

那也太浪费了，我觉得也许有顺手牵羊解决中业岛的后手。

另外上次打越南也是小平同志访美之后，菲律宾这个级别，派国防部长就可以了。

作者提出一个尖锐的问题。菲国人民是不是应该先搞清楚，是为国家主权而战，还是在为利益集团而做殉葬品。

据作者的说法：

“The much-touted Malampaya project, contrary to what in my view it deceptively conveys, gives a 45% share to Shell Oil and another 45% to Chevron, with the remaining 10% for the rest of the Filipinos for what ever oil and gas beneath it are discovered. ”

黄岩岛周边的深海石油的开采分成，45%归于Shell石油公司，45% 归于Chevron石油，只有10%归于菲国草民。

--------------------------------------------------

To the government of the Philippines: before any shooting starts with China regarding the Spratly Islands, may I ask for whom exactly would we be fighting or dying for?

As a former serviceman in Vietnam (1969 US Navy-Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit) I have seen men die in battle and understand what military medals represent, and it is from this perspective I am writing.

But allow my apologies first of all to those I might inadvertently offend, but the troubling circumstance we find ourselves today elicit many thoughts - none of which breed warm feelings of either security or comfort.

Instinctively I wonder, growing up in Dampalit, Malabon, why is it that when it comes to enforcing their will against their own citizens, in asserting what is supposedly the right ideology or more particularly how to think, successive leaders in government never fail to show firmness of determination and purpose. Yet when confronted with a real test requiring reason and leadership, as it has with a powerful adversary like China, it behaves with more compliance than one with conviction?

If indeed the Spratlys are part of our country's [the Philippines'] domain, which might require the most extreme of sacrifice for some if not for all of its citizens, in particular the military and their families, it is not only right but necessary to clarify what is exactly at stake besides the undefined proclamation and emotional appeal of defending "sovereignty" over those islands.

The much-touted Malampaya project, contrary to what in my view it deceptively conveys, gives a 45% share to Shell Oil and another 45% to Chevron, with the remaining 10% for the rest of the Filipinos for what ever oil and gas beneath it are discovered.

Given such puny gain for the people of the Philippines, would it not be logical to expect those who would benefit the most, to shoulder the heavy burden of this crisis?

Not to be ignored for its paramount significance is the question of how that unequal arrangement came about.

Who sold out the country and why aren't they prosecuted for essentially the same principle the country is now facing in its stance against China? Perhaps it might be worthwhile re-reading Albert Camus who has something to say about that.

Equally important is how the Philippines in the year 2012 ended up with no military capabilities to defend its shores when it always has the wherewithal to use force against its own citizens?

We may have a treaty with America that might offer psychological relief to some, believing it would give the Chinese pause for any belligerent act it is contemplating, but to those who are more politically aware knows, America has a duty and an obligation to Americans first and foremost.

The inexorable fact is , there is more money to be made doing business in China than there is in the Philippines. Consequently, when it comes to treaties and obligations, America will always and forever stand for the interest of its own citizens first and last.

To believe differently and expect it would serve the interest of the Filipinos in that equation, when the Philippine government by its history has repeatedly shown willful neglect of its own responsibilities, is analogous to those who believe that hope is a plan and intense praying will eventually bring divine intervention.

Oni Sioson

Connecticut, USA (Apr 27, '12)

邢立达：回复@梁钟先森:美国同学说的，上午听电台说，菲律宾认为盟友仅仅提供口头上的支持，并没有直接行动支持菲律宾在黄岩岛的军事行动，由于缺少军事援助和海军油料的匮乏，菲律宾将撤回军舰。 //

@邢立达：一觉醒来，菲佣国怂了，真没意思……这个世界还真是大佬们的天下啊，防长去美国拍一桌子，美帝就把狗牵回去了。