Gunfighter06: No, it wasn't more benign that than the Spanish 'occuation' at all. Just to give you a small idea, the U. S. introduced concentration camps tactics similar to what it had decried Spain for using in Cuba on a massive scale in the Phillipines shortly after arriving. And how can you explain the systematic, involuntary loss of the Spanish language in a land 'occupied' by the Spanish crown for three and a half centuries, whose natives had defended the crown against dozens of invasions?

And yes, you kicked the Japanese out, which is good, but also at a huge loss of civillian life. Japanese atrocities o top of that didn't help, of course.

@thucy, if you redefined land for the purpose of territorial claims to exclude uninhabitabled rocks and such small prottusions, how would you go about establishing zone of control over the rest of the sea?

We have something of a tradgey of the commons if all resources are available to all, so i think international agreements are better. But this ancient physical claim <= might is right; bullshit is suboptimal, imho

o top --> on top

Wait a minute, aren't you the same people who decry Argentina's claim to Malvinas? I think China's claim to Huangyan island has that beat by a good 600-700 years.

".Philippines claims scarborough shoal according to international law UNCLOS, That any natural resources 200nautical miles from a country has sole exploitation rights. "

The Zhongsha islands are considered part of China, and have since before the PRC ever existed.

"If we *really* don't like someone, we usually end up bombing and invading them. "

Why don't you chickenhawks sign up for the military. Or do you just like cheering on death from the sidelines?

@ Gobble

How was kicking the Japanese out "wrong"? It doesn't get any righter than that.

@ JECE

If the Filipinos feel like America's intervention have been for the worse over time, then why are they close allies with us?

@ Putin33

I'm not "cheering on death". If you look at American history, people who piss us off tend to end up dead or conquered.

Here is a link to a paper which discusses China's historical claim. I had never really thought about this before so I don't have an opinion, yet.
http://chinesejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/94.full.pdf

Putin, I think the difference with the Falklands is that those Islands have been habited by the British for many generations. Hence history trumps geography.
In this case the Chinese may have claimed the Islands for centuries. Mainly because it was a fishing ground. But what if the Phillipines or Vietnam etc can also say "well we have fished here for centuries too?" (if that is what they say - or not - I don't know)

@gunfigther, you appear to have a very short-sigthed view of history... Try to imagine human history is more than 300 years old.

And putin, he wasn't cheering on Death, he was making a short-sigthed observation of history which glorifies his own nation's imperialism - forgetting that every other empire has collapsed.

"Putin, I think the difference with the Falklands is that those Islands have been habited by the British for many generations."

So in order for distant land claims to be recognized you have to send lots of settlers, is that the standard?

"But what if the Phillipines or Vietnam etc can also say "well we have fished here for centuries too?""

Vietnam is irrelevant to this shoal, but the Phillippines has never written in any document that this territory was theirs, nor was it recognized as such when they became independent or anything else. I think Marcos made up some claim that he had 200 miles off his coast, and it didn't matter if another country claimed something within that distance.

Re: falklans, i think you will find indeginous people's right to self-determination applies, and is the only criteria for territorial control which isn't basically 'Might makes Right',

Argentina has no need to control the Falklans other than fishing and mining rights, which as i've argued shouldn't be based solely on the island territories, imho. We'd be better off with a sharing agreement - especially for fishing rights.

"Re: falklans, i think you will find indeginous people's right to self-determination applies, and is the only criteria for territorial control which isn't basically 'Might makes Right', "

UK's "indigenous" claim to the Malvinas is effectively might makes right for a long period of time. Much like Israel's claim to Palestinian territory now.

"Argentina has no need to control the Falklans"

Who makes that determination?

To be perfectly honest it's hard to say who should have true claim on some of these S. China Sea isles. Which is why I wish it would be sent to a neutral international court, but that won't happen, in the meantime, might is right, and if the world is rational, at least for the near future, this conflict will die down and remained unresolved a while yet.

Might is right for a reason, because if might wasn't right then there'd be unending territorial claims.

"So in order for distant land claims to be recognized you have to send lots of settlers, is that the standard?"

That's definitely a factor. That's how the Argentinians got to own Argentina in the first place. While there isn't any one factor that decides there needs to be some sort of priorities of factors.
Here are some example of factors. What should the order be?
Habitation/History
Fish ground/history
Geography
Treaties

In this case Putin you argue that Argentina owns the Falklands because of geography (there is some historical claim but this is unclear and not long enough to count). Yet in the South China Sea you argue the reverse in this case history trumps geography. Why are the priorities different in this case?

It is kinda impractical to hold people born today responcible for their parent's actions... Unless of course you reject individuality, in which case this becomes a very different conversation.

Looking at the area on a map. Isn't China trying to claim the South China Sea a bit like Italy trying to claim the entire Mediterranean Sea. Surely it should be a common area, with the seas lying close to land belong to the respective countries who own that land. That is my naive view.
From a balance of power perspective, I don't think it is in the worlds interest to cede this entire area to China.

Spyman's point to Putin and factors to a claim are all excellent things for a court to consider. However, since that's not going to happen, yes, as Putin says, might makes right.

The international level is still anarchy, just anarchy with a semblance of order, unfortunately. We as a species have managed to impose order and cooperation within nations (save failed states) but not among nations. It's a shame.

"In this case Putin you argue that Argentina owns the Falklands because of geography (there is some historical claim but this is unclear and not long enough to count). Yet in the South China Sea you argue the reverse in this case history trumps geography. Why are the priorities different in this case?"

You inserted some qualification there that is disputed and not accepted by Argentina and most everybody outside the UK and their English speaking allies. There is a legitimate historical claim. Argentina claimed the island first and has had a continuous claim ever since the British settlement. Because they haven't given up the claim they have a primary right to the island. The fact that the UK has refused to negotiate or even talk with Argentina for 200 years does not make their claim "indigenous".

"What should the order be?"

First priority should be to whomever had the most primary, longest, continuous claim. Second priority to international treaties, which incorporates geography anyway.

"Surely it should be a common area, with the seas lying close to land belong to the respective countries who own that land."

Nobody has contested Chinese claims until the last couple of decades, when they discover resources there. You can't just take away a country's territory because you suddenly determine that they have too much of it.

Gunfighter06: Ha ha ha, Filipinos ≠ Philippine government. And besides, how would, say, a future Armenian alliance with Turkey negate the genocide? What the United States did in the Philippines is not going to go away because dictatorships and flawed democracies in Manila are working with the United States.

I hope the Filipino population is wise enough to realize that its former imperialistic occupiers are a lesser threat than red China.

And that the United States is committed to stopping Chinese expansion.

The problem isn't Chinese ownership of the islands. They may very well have the best claim to them and we shouldn't care too much about who happens to plant a flag on some desolate rocks and atolls. The problem is the nature of the Chinese claim. It's Nine-dotted line into the South China Sea basically claims the entire area as its own internal waters, a ludicrous idea which would be analogous to the United States wanting the whole of the Caribbean on account of Navassa Island. If China wants just the ISLANDS then fine, but if it wants to annex the entire South China Sea it has to be stopped. Freedom of navigation is an incredibly important pillar of the international system and needs to be defended.

@GF06
"And that the United States is committed to stopping Chinese expansion."

How can you say that when it's America who is funding it?

@gunfighter, why is "red" China a threat? What is inherent in the "redness" of China that makes it more threatening?

Gunfighter06: Great; yet the P. R. C. isn't going to try and colonize the Philippines, perpetrating a genocide in the process, any time soon. The 'threats' you pose, if you posed any at all, are rather relative. Yes, the likelihood of the United States invading again is next to nil, but that doesn't mean that Filipinos will forget the past, or be particularly thankful for past "liberations".

Gobbledydook: Well, I think the point Gunfighter06 is trying to make here is that the red politics of China can't cooexist with the green politics needed to save humankind; seeing as they are on opposite sides of the color circle they can only cancel each other out.