its symbolic, and its mean to deter china aggression, not help some country to establish their claim. there are many issue take priority over some uninhabit island claim 10 thousands miles that most american didn't even heard of and its not even our claim. why does american have to send our daughters/sons to fight china for this? just look at whats gonna happen if there is a military conflict between us and china. North Korea, no more 6party, don't bet on china to help on NK, heck they probably send more aid/military stuff to NK if war break out between china and us. Same for Iran. but the biggest issue is economy. china hold about 10% of US debt, although not much, but at first sign of trouble they gonna dumb it in a massive way, what do you think other investor gonna do? they gonna dumb their US bond too for fear of loss, stock market will drop like rock, our slow economy will hit another recession, both china/us economy will be crippled. then their is the US coporation, i'm sure the CEOs certainly don't want to lose their profit, and they are buddies with US politician. so why would any chinese/american want this!!! unless china start acting VERY aggressively such as invading its neighbor, a military intervention won't happen. during WWII we didn't even involve in the conflict even when asia/europe are burning, its closet ally been bombed by german, until peral harbor, a direct attack on US soil.
so its best PH/ china work this out through deals. antagonize china will not help unless ph/vietnam have a good deck of cards, which they don't.
Interesting point.
Deter Chinese aggression but not help another country's claim.
If the US is not involved in helping another country's claim even indirectly, then where is the requirement to deter 'Chinese aggression'?
Logically seen, if China wants to occupy a disputed territory and makes it its own and the US deters the same, it means that the US is indirectly assisting the other country to establish its claim.
Americans are not known to be a very informed people. Their role model is Joe the Plumber and find it delightful to have a VP candidate, Sarah Palin, who can see Russia from her window! Can't blame them since they have been brought up on Superman being capable of having vision that see far and through anything! Therefore, if they do not know about things beyond their shores, one should not be surprised.
Not only Sarah Palin has no clue of the world, here is another case where the depth of knowledge of a US President aspirant indicates that the Americans know little beyond there shores.
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is being pilloried for an interview he gave to the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he mangled a response to a question about Uzbekistan. "When they ask me, 'Who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan,'" he explained to David Brody, "I'm going to say you know, 'I don't know. Do you know?'"
Cain continued, "Knowing who is the head of some of these small insignificant states around the world, I don't think that is something that is critical to focusing on national security and getting this economy going. When I get ready to go visit that country, I'll know who it is, but until then, I want to focus on the big issues that we need to solve."
Joshua Foust: Herman Cain thinks Uzbekistan doesn't matter to America. He's wrong. | Need to Know | PBS
On the other hand, Americans are very possessive about doing things the American way. This is what Bush said when he went to war on Iraq:
Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice"¦"¦
And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail"¦.
We are a peaceful people - yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater"¦..
Full text: Bush's speech | World news | guardian.co.uk
Also
Speaking of the Pentagon's need to focus on the war in Afghanistan, Gates said: "I wanted a department that frankly could walk and chew gum at the same time, that could wage war as we are doing now, at the same time we plan and prepare for tomorrow's wars."
The weird prospect that this usage -- "tomorrow's wars" -- renders routine is that we anticipate a good many wars in the near future. We are the ascendant democracy, the exceptional nation in the world of nations. To fight wars is our destiny and our duty. Thus the word "wars" -- increasingly in the plural -- is becoming the common way we identify not just the wars we are fighting now but all the wars we expect to fight.
David Bromwich: America's Wars: How Serial War Became the American Way of Life
Therefore:
1. The Americans do not possess the knowledge to know beyond their shores.
2. The US will defend its American way of life, come what may, come what the sacrifices are.
As far as the economy goes, check the situation China is (in the thread Doom and Gloom of China's Economy).
The largest Chinese partners (2011 figures) are the EU, US, Japan, South Korea and India. Imagine the economic and social turmoil if they stop their trade with China on a US nudge, nudge, wink, wink?