Inb4, EEZ is not border/territory water.

By making the above 'correct' statement, i will be labelled as traitor. 

The continental shelf rule, as defined by international law and specifically UNCLOS, grants coastal states sovereign rights over the seabed and subsoil of their continental shelves for the purpose of exploring and exploiting natural resources. This rule extends the coastal state's jurisdiction beyond its territorial sea, potentially up to 200 nautical miles or even further if the continental margin naturally extends beyond that distance.

what eez? we claim according to continental shelf rule.

holy hell that is just slightly left of luzon, china so far come kacau

Continental shelf only relates to seabed resources, and doesn't include the water column.

so you mean the oil belongs to us, china is only claiming the fish?

Nowadays people are confuse about loyalty.

You say you are loyal to this country yet you support china's illegal 9 dash line.

Nope, I didn't say that.

You are still in that it's either war or surrender territory mentality. You are thinking only by war, a country's sovereignty can be protected. That's why you are asking these nonsense loaded questions which no one sane would actually say yes.

What are you thinking? I would reply yes to those ridiculous questions? Get serious will you?

Do u even understand the meaning of sovereignty?
Yes.

Or you are twisting the meaning of sovereignty to fit your narrative?
Nope.

Care to elaborate to you, what do "peaceful negotiations" and"diplomacy" entail?
Engage with opposing party in negotiations to settle the matter peacefully, no matter how long it takes.

Are u insinuating that making concessions and compromises in exchange for border security is the definition of "peaceful negotiations"?
Yes, and it's preferable to war.

Peace through appeasement?
It's called diplomacy. Or would you prefer a leader who settles all border disputes through war?

Does your definition of sovereignty of a country only cover its border and does not include autonomy in other matters? \
No. It include A LOT of other matters.

For instance, a sovereign country can't decide its own direction in aspects such as Economy, immigration and foreign relations?
I have never said that. In fact, my opinion is the opposite. Please refer to my latest tered about sohai Pinoy president.

So your "unnecessary conflict" is only at face value, meaning a weaker country gets to keep its border in name only, it also did not lose nor win in physical conflict, but in reality experience losses in other aspects, for instance, as a result of "peaceful negotiation", a weaker country relaxing immigration from a stronger country that would in turn affect the job prospect of the locals, is that your definition of victory? "No loss at paper/official capacity, but lose in reality"?
Depends on what the negotiations entail. I am not the one negotiating. If I don't like the terms, then we should continue negotiating provided the other party also wants to. If they want to stop and resort to war to settle the issue, then we would have no choice, would we? All I am say is "EXHAUST ALL PEACEFUL MEANS OF SETTLEMENT BEFORE CONFRONTATION".

If yes, does that mean you subscribe to might makes right mentality? Weaker party has to kowtow to stronger party?
Sad as that might be, this is the nature of our world. Israel-Gaza conflict is best example. Please show me an instance where might doesn't make right in this world.

People do like to ask me a lot of stupid questions   

Sad as that might be, this is the nature of our world. Israel-Gaza conflict is best example. Please show me an instance where might doesn't make right in this world

U should have said this from the get go, save everyone's time, don't pretend. Previously, you talked as if you are neutral and does not have a stance.

Tq for showing ur true color.

Isn't it true? You couldn't provide an example where might doesn't make right in the real world. Please don't give me hollywood movie examples. Real world doesn't work that way.

Then tell me how do you think the world works then? if might doesn't make right. I have an idea of what you might say, if it matches to what I am thinking then it's gonna be funny.

A lot people confuse about loyalty

Some leader openly support hamas and called it freedom fighter. i despised hamas which obviously terrorist who harm unarmed civilians.

I support two state solution while some keep shouting from sea to river slogan

Loyalty does not mean blind follower of leader statement

Singapore won due to pragmatism

Incorrect....
We (MY gov) don't label Hamas as terrorist. 
Just like majority of developed western nations don't see what Israel is doing as genocide



At the end, who hold the power win because some of those most powerful party don't want to play by the rule anymore. This also applicable to many parties involved in multiple conflicts around the globe, including Russia, Ukraine, US and Israel.    But some party still have the face (with the help of MSM and ignorant people) to claim moral high ground.

U must be real confused as ur statement did not disagreed with what i said

U said hamas is terrorist but MY gov don't agree with your statement.... 

That y i said u r real confused
The earlier statement i made to highlight the confusion on loyalty

Loyalty does not mean blind following stance make by government or leader but make use of God given brain for critical thinking.

So in this case government say hamas is freedom fighter but what is definition of terrorist?
Harming unarmed civilians.
So it is clear cut hamas is terrorist regardless what government stance it. Nothing about disloyal when truth is as it is

So r u clear up ur mind now?

Are u insinuating that making concessions and compromises in exchange for border security is the definition of "peaceful negotiations"?
Yes, and it's preferable to war.

Peace through appeasement?
It's called diplomacy. Or would you prefer a leader who settles all border disputes through war?

Does your definition of sovereignty of a country only cover its border and does not include autonomy in other matters? \
No. It include A LOT of other matters.

Incorrect....
We (MY gov) don't label Hamas as terrorist. 
Just like majority of developed western nations don't see what Israel is doing as genocide



At the end, who hold the power win because some of those most powerful party don't want to play by the rule anymore. This also applicable to many parties involved in multiple conflicts around the globe, including Russia, Ukraine, US and Israel.    But some party still have the face (with the help of MSM and ignorant people) to claim moral high ground.