Tension rises between US and Philippines

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Fudger
If you read it proparly you will see i haven't said they are innocent. My point is that they where not the instigators of this war. Its americans baby and they can't start dropping it now. True with regards to the Philippines if you lie with dogs you get up with fleas, but the Philippines used as a scape goat now for protecting its own is cheap coming from america with regards to this illegal war. How may iraq's have the Philippines army killed ? what is their role in this war ? Honestly I have no idea and would appreciate if someone could clarify !

Completely irrelevant. Again, the point is not whether the war was justified or not, or frankly whether it’s the fault of any one or group of nations, but whether a policy of appeasement or what can be construed as appeasement is responsible.

For example, the Madrid was quickly followed by a shock election win by the Spanish socialists and their announcement to immediately withdraw from Iraq. Regardless of the new government’s election manifest, they should not have been seen to capitulate so soon after the bombing. Indeed, what better justification to plant a few bombs in Rome, Warsaw or London do you need if you want to change a nation’s policy?

The same goes for the hostage taking - where is it written that a hostage must be taken in Iraq, after all Paul Johnson wasn’t in Iraq, he was in Saudi Arabia - or at least his head is. If threatening to decapitate a hostage gets another country to accede to your demands, does it really matter where you get them?

Unfortunately, giving in to blackmail only guarantees one thing, that the blackmailer will come round again.

So would you say that the americans are "terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/whatever" ? Sounds like the americans are running the country as a dictator. You support the americans in their actions and policy in this war cleareyed or just certain bits of it ?

Whether the war is justified or not is completely irrelevant - that’s why I used all of the terms. Whether we should encourage repetition of such acts as hostage taking or bombings is not.

Sparks

I'm not sure, TC, if there's a moral distinction between "Give me what I want or I'll cut this guys head off" and "Give us what we want or we'll bomb you back to the stone age".
Of course, there is a legal distinction - the former is terrorism, the latter is unilateral peacekeeping action - but morally, it's a lot less clear-cut.

However, that's a side issue, as you've said. What is not a side issue is the fact that the Phillipino government is responsible for the safety of Phillipinos. Not Americans. And likewise for the US government, as they've shown time and again with the ICC. So if the Phillipino government acts to save a Phillipino life in a way that contravenes US government policy and US philosophy, that's a problem for the US to resolve with itself, not a reason for the Phillipino's to start allowing their citizens to be executed in order to maintain solidarity with the US in the execution of an illegal occupation.

To be frank, all this hullabaloo is just the US realising that if it only ever looks out for #1, other countries will do so as well, and that means that at some point, the US may be inconvienenced as a result.

beer enigma

And so it continues.......

Headless body found in Iraqi river
22/07/2004 - 14:55:08

Iraqi police have found a decapitated body in an orange jump-suit on the banks of the Tigris River north of Baghdad.

The identity of the body, discovered last night in Beiji, 155 miles north of the Iraqi capital, was not immediately clear, police said.

Bulgaria said it was investigating whether it was one of two of its citizens seized by militants loyal to an al-Qaida ally.

Another headless body in an orange jump-suit was found in the Tigris in the same area earlier this month. It has yet to be identified.

Fudger

well said sparks.

i have to disagree with "irrelevant" TC, the issue that america went into iraq gave the two fingers to the UN and the world is a major relevant factor as to why most people couldn't give a flying feck about the americans and the situation that they are now in and hence have no sympathy or agreement with the americans on any other policy or actions they undertake ie: having a go at the Philippines. I would agree to an extent that giving into a blackmailer is not the way to do business but where do you draw a line ? How many heads have to roll before it is ended. When the oil runs out or what ? You cannot say that the bombs in Madrid etc would have happended if the americans had not inserged into iraq, therefore once again american policy has cost innocent lives again. The Philippines have obviously come to the conclusion that its better to withdraw (still no idea what they where doing there) and that they are satisfied that their decision is the right one and they will deal with whatever consequences on their domestic front if any in the future. America are bullying the Philippines to stay in the war ? do we want the war to keep going ?

Moriarty

Sparks, the point being made isn't just that it's not in the US' intrests, it's that the phillipino governments actions have been directly against it's own intrests. They have (possibly) saved one of their citizens lives today, but they've undoubtedly condemned more of their own citizens to death because of their actions.

Even using your supposition that a government should only care about it's own citizens (which, as an aside, I don't subscribe to), this action flys directly in the face of it. The Philipino government has only succeded in making life more dangerous for every philipino at home and abroad.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm not sure, TC, if there's a moral distinction between "Give me what I want or I'll cut this guys head off" and "Give us what we want or we'll bomb you back to the stone age".

I have not at any stage attempted to make any such distinction, which is, incidentally, pretty irrelevant to the question of giving in to blackmail.

However, that's a side issue, as you've said. What is not a side issue is the fact that the Phillipino government is responsible for the safety of Phillipinos. Not Americans. And likewise for the US government, as they've shown time and again with the ICC. So if the Phillipino government acts to save a Phillipino life in a way that contravenes US government policy and US philosophy, that's a problem for the US to resolve with itself, not a reason for the Phillipino's to start allowing it's citizens to be executed in order to maintain solidarity with the US in the execution of an illegal occupation.

Other that the fact that it does show scant regard for not only Americans but for numerous other countries, including the UK, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Australia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Japan and Thailand. Additionally it places the Philippines in a position whereby it has shown itself willing to capitulate - a dangerous position to promote if you’ve already got homegrown terrorism.

Not to mention the diplomatic backlash - would you now trust the Spanish government to maintain any agreements made in a previous administration? Quite a few nations would think twice before saying yes now.

If you want to be Machiavellian about it, allowing a citizen to be executed has little to do with maintaining solidarity with the US in the execution of an illegal occupation, and more to do with discouraging the future execution of one’s citizens.

To be frank, all this hullabaloo is just the US realising that if it only ever looks out for #1, other countries will do so as well, and that means that at some point, the US may be inconvienenced as a result.

It amazes me how people cannot see beyond their desire to see the Yanks get a bloody nose. Indeed, were the tables turned and the US was attempting to bully, yet another, nation into capitulation - no doubt you would all be falling over each other to condemn such appeasement.

Fudger

True but that is the Philippines Gov't decision "but that’s not what we’re discussing" as TC has previously pointed out when we strayed of the topic of 'Tension rises between US and Philippines' Moriarty.

BUMP!

Regardless of the new government’s election manifest, they should not have been seen to capitulate so soon after the bombing.

I work with a load of spanish lads and I asked them about this at the time. They all told me that the election was effectively a foregone conclusion with or without the bombing. The spanish people wanted nothing to do with Iraq and that mixed with other issues is why there was a govt change. What were they supposed to do - go back on their election manifesto and stay for a while? There was no capitulation - they just acted on their promises (unlike some leaders we could mention).

Actually I think the bombing may have acted the other way IF the govt at the time didn't blatantly lie to the public.

And as for the Philipinnes withdrawal - you have to ask yourself if, when they got involved, they knew all the facts. If not then they were totally justified in getting the hell outa dodge. Still shouldn't have bowed to terrorists I think. But then again they may have decided that this (what they probably now understand to be) illegal war wasn't worth the life of a single philipinno national!!

vorbis

tc does have a point. The mere mention of America is provoking rather irrational thoughts, they're responsible for every bad thing in the world. Blaming them for the Sudan. Thats rich considering all that Europe has done to help. Not to mention the Arab League of which Sudan is a member. they recently praised Sudan and have offered no condemmation of the atrocities.

Phillipine's shoud have thought this out properly. The terrorists back home will be starting the behading strategy pretty soon I think.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BUMP!
I work with a load of spanish lads and I asked them about this at the time. They all told me that the election was effectively a foregone conclusion with or without the bombing.

You asked a group of guys under the age of 35 living in another country what was going to happen in the election and you take their word for it? I suggest you check out the accuracy of some of the polls here if you want to take that kind of data at face value.

The spanish people wanted nothing to do with Iraq and that mixed with other issues is why there was a govt change. What were they supposed to do - go back on their election manifesto and stay for a while?

Rather than appearing to give in to a terrorist act, they could have made a defiant refusal, announced that they were going to review the situation with reference to the handover and then declared their intention to pull out two or three months later.

There was no capitulation - they just acted on their promises (unlike some leaders we could mention).

Looked like a capitulation, TBH, and that’s really all you need to encourage such tactics. That’s all that matters.

Actually I think the bombing may have acted the other way IF the govt at the time didn't blatantly lie to the public.

I’m not actually criticizing the election of the Socialist in Spain, or even their choice to pull out, just their rash decision to do so straight away.

And as for the Philipinnes withdrawal - you have to ask yourself if, when they got involved, they knew all the facts. If not then they were totally justified in getting the hell outa dodge.

I’m not criticizing their decision to leave Iraq. Only their decision to do so a month early as a capitulation to blackmail demands.

Still shouldn't have bowed to terrorists I think. But then again they may have decided that this (what they probably now understand to be) illegal war wasn't worth the life of a single philipinno national!!

It will now most likely cost the lives of many more, including Philipinos – or had you forgotten that they have their own home grown terrorists?