MERGED: All About RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty/ VFA-MLSA and Related Issues

[poy]

---

OK ra ni oi...pero dapat ang phil government must make its own initiatives sad.....dili lang magsalig..

[bblang]

i think the filipino soldiers would learn a lot from these americans in terms of war tactics. we also benefit from their technology and hi-tech weaponry. they are really here to help us.

[coolnezz]

Save it? Save it from yourselves. Your imperialistic ambition has caused tremendous suffering & misery all around the world. Your presence in my country for more than 100 yrs. validates the fact of your hold in our economy & politics. In your "Manifest Destiny" dictum -your govt. wasted more than a million Filipino lives. U should study history. Why did your govt. systematically & almost completely eradicated the numerous American Indian tribes & launched your forced indoctrination & assimilation program of its people? Why do U have military bases in 130 countries? U have appointed yourselves as the world's policeman but it is just the devious way of deodorizing your imperialistic greed & lust for power. Ur so called civic humanitarian programs & military presence in these countries is to project a false image of deception & in that guise protect greedy Corporate AmeriKKKa's interest. Specifically, the Zionist agenda. Do some critical thinking, man! There are objective resources all around U. Educate yourself!

are you from the mountains? living under some rock or cave?
without the US saving your A$$ you probably be speaking japanese or spanish right now. but you probably like that don't you? without USAID there'd be millions of impoverish people dying or dead already. educate yourself and stop reading history books from north korea, iran, russia and china! you don't like America? stop using american products! starting now, don't freakin use the internet from now on!

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I never said Saddam was a martyr unjustly crucified by the United States. Saddam was a sadistic, bloodthirsty madman no doubt about that. He was a modern-day incarnation of Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Combined.

I never said it either that you said that he is one . I was pointing out that he needs to go . For the record , US of A did not crucify hi either but the Iraqi's themselves .

Let's grant for a moment that the overriding pretext for invading Iraq was to take down an oppressive regime. Has it become the United States' mission to take down oppressive regimes the world over? If Saddam deserved to die because he was such an asshole, and that his being an asshole was enough reason to invade Iraq, then by extension the United States should take down all those dictators out there by invading their countries, putting them on trial for all the people they've killed or starved to death and hanging them.

Dili USA but of the policies and decisions of the UNITED NATIONS and it just so happens that US of A leads the way . Do you think only American soldiers are there ? You'll see also other nations soldiers in there also and if the case that you strongly say US of A invaded , should it be United Nations invaded them ?

And if the suspicion of presence of serious-shyt WMDs is enough reason to invade a sovereign country, we can deduce that Kim Jong Il should rate highest on the list because not only does he starve his own people, he actually admits to running a nuclear program that is close to producing weapons grade plutonium and lobs missiles over Japan. That's even more serious shyt. Yet the United States chooses to take a diplomatic tack backed by economic sanctions and has done so for years.

And do you think that a planned war/peace negotiations to disarm is also not in the books for these democratic nations ? Call it anything you want , from invaders , colonizers , oppressors , real terrorist ... maka ingon cguro ang taga UN doh , kaw na lang pag sila . They are in the watch list for years , its just that Saddam is past due .

And why not invade Myanmar, which has a ruling junta that brutally suppresses dissent and which prefers its people die like flies rather than allow foreign aid after the country is ravaged by a typhoon?

What made Iraq so different?

I wouldnt know deep down the core , do you ?

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

The Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda link is one of the unfortunate pseudo-facts perpetrated by proponents of the Iraq invasion. Al-Zawahiri, as you say, may have established an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq with Saddam's knowledge. However, reports of a strong and mature Iraqi-Al Qaeda partnership were debunked by no less than the Pentagon itself. In a 2005 report to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Pentagon's Inspector General himself revealed that assessments made by ex-Pentagon official Douglas Feith stating that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a symbiotic relationship was an "alternative assessment" inconsistent with all available intelligence and the consensus of the intelligence community. Despite deep misgivings expressed by the CIA itself and others in the intelligence circles, Feith's assessment alone was used to bolster America's case for invading Iraq.

You just said it yourself from a source I would not want to know . INCONSISTENT with ALL AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE and it involves the CIA . Amigo ... OBL has no knowledge of the IRAQ based Al Qaeda , he has the blessings to it to operate against infidels . Again how can America invade a nation when numerous other nations are there also to support the cause of liberating Iraq ?

Reports of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Mohammad Atta have not conclusively been proven to have been linked to 9/11, if they even occurred at all. Ironically, it was only in 2004 that Al Qaeda in Iraq became active under the Jordanian-born bandit Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi, prior to the invasion, was not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Bush and Cheney, not surprisingly, will have the world believe otherwise despite all evidence to the contrary.

From a source that ive read , Atta indeed was chosen to participate in the attack hence the 15 out of 19 ( correct me if im wrong ) of the hijackers are Saudi's to include Atta so to mark a spot that will piss off US of A more and to incline themselves to question Saudi Arabia's participation of the 9/11 since this is mostly the very reason why OBL is terrorizing .

To summarize, two major reasons for invading Iraq, WMD and the Iraq-Al Qaeda link, have now been largely discredited. The liberation of the Iraqi people from the yoke of oppression was a secondary reason, one that ticked off the required "high moral ground" box required to sell the idea to the American public. That soon became the primary reason and it now begs the question, "If that's the case, why stop at Iraq?"

It depends to who runs the show and who agrees with them . I dont think they have stopped also . Just like what I posted a couple of replies and pages ago ... why does 70 plus Iraqi civilian men , women and children has to die from fellow Iraqi suicide bombers ?

Just a wild theory though ... dont you think the pandemonium on the FLU infections are just man made since it connects because it originated in the Americas ? Why not Myanmar , North Korea or any place other than the AMerica's ?

In the cold, dispassionate light of day, the whole world knows now that the invasion of Iraq was carried out under a false pretext. Was it simply a case of faulty intelligence or something more sinister? I don't know. I don't want to assign motives because like I said earlier, I don't want to pretend to know.

But it seems now that you are spilling some beans mixed with opinion based on sources you probably knew as a fact . What would that be then ? The sad part is , someone would say the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS when in fact , those who actually at 1 time was a part of the whole brouhaha didnt even know what you are talking about .

----------

That the House of Saud and the Bin Laden family condemn Al Qaeda and Osama is fact, but I never said that they supported OBL themselves. It is a host of moneyed private Saudi citizens and non-government organizations that continue to support Al Qaeda precisely because they see the Saudi royal family to be repressive, corrupt and given to excess. And the fact still stands that the country is dominated not so much by the Saudi royal family as by clerics of a highly intolerant Wahabi sect (the ascendancy of the House of Saud in the 1930's is owed largely to the support of Wahabi fundamentalists). Do you not see the irony of Saudi Arabia being America's biggest ally on one hand and dominated by a sect that espouses the destruction of Western ideals, and through its madrassahs (religious schools) continues to turn out young men steeped in anti-Western jihadist thinking on the other?

Monetary sources of OBL and Al Qaeda came from fellow supporters of JIHAD who shares the same ideals of these radical islamist but cant participate in the war . All over the world in all continents where muslims exist .

Many people seem to forget that the financial and support base of Al Qaeda is in Saudi Arabia.

Thats what you said ... in part of financial support yes but it will never be a SUPPORT BASE .

----------

I never said Al Qaeda was purely based in Afghanistan. I simply said the true front for the War on Terror, if there ever was a geographical front for it, happens to be Afghanistan and not Iraq. Yet the majority of forces were committed to Iraq, much of it to fight a homegrown insurgency that had very little to do with Al Qaeda in the first place (remembering that al-Zarqawi's brutal tactics turned off a large portion of the Sunni insurgency). President Obama got it right when he said military efforts to combat terrorism should now be shifted to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(notwithstanding the fact that war against Al Qaeda was already being waged along its true front--Afghanistan; and that until the 2003 invasion, Al Qaeda was largely absent from Iraq).

I would submit to apology if I took it the wrong way . Whatever it is in your understanding , Afghanistan will also be just another STRATEGIC SPOT for Al Qaeda to base themselves because of the geographical strategic reasons . Daghan kaayo exist and hiding spots to conduct there warfare training , bases and exits to other countries who readily accepts them and will adopt them . Its not a FRONT but a mere base . When we say its a front , mao na ang lugar where it all started and projects its power knowingly that it can shred anyone who messes with it .

As for Sudan, Osama bin Laden left the country a penniless and disheartened man after a string of failed investments, his money largely stolen by corrupt Sudanese government officials and dishonest business partners and employees. He could barely afford passage to Afghanistan for himself and his family. He may be the world's arch-terrorist now, but at one time he was a businessman (and not much of one at that).

AFAIK .. he invested to front something . is father was the real businessman being the patriarch of the Bin Ladens fortune . OBL entirely relied in his share of fortune that eventually was freezed .

[Tarmac]

Dili USA but of the policies and decisions of the UNITED NATIONS and it just so happens that US of A leads the way . Do you think only American soldiers are there ? You'll see also other nations soldiers in there also and if the case that you strongly say US of A invaded , should it be United Nations invaded them ?

Bush called it the "Coalition of the Willing" because the Iraq invasion polarized the United Nations as it never had in years. Many countries were opposed to the invasion.

It was the USA that sounded the alarm, harping on the presence of WMDs. It was the US that strove to convince the world that Saddam Hussein should be stopped. I remember watching Colin Powell's dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003. Personally, I too was convinced he'd made a good case for the existence of WMDs. Everyone did at the time. After all, Powell was the least hawkish of all senior members of the Bush cabinet and enjoyed tremendous credibility on the world stage.

Two years later, Powell himself would say they had gotten the intelligence on Saddam's weapons stockpiles "dead wrong."

To make an analogy, the USA was like the person that screamed bloody murder, organized a posse of townsfolk and lynched the person he thought responsible. Only to realize later on a murder hadn't even been committed.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Bush called it the "Coalition of the Willing" because the Iraq invasion polarized the United Nations as it never had in years. Many countries were opposed to the invasion.

I can partly agree on that thus the reason also why Blair was removed by the parliament . But I rather call it LIBERATION than INVASION by nature and not by definition . Liberation from twisted ideas and not only by destabilizing Saddam regime .

It was the USA that sounded the alarm, harping on the presence of WMDs. It was the US that strove to convince the world that Saddam Hussein should be stopped. I remember watching Colin Powell's dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003. Personally, I too was convinced he'd made a good case for the existence of WMDs. Everyone did at the time. After all, Powell was the least hawkish of all senior members of the Bush cabinet and enjoyed tremendous credibility on the world stage.

Because US themselves provided the probable cause which in part is the reason of the liberation . To disarm Saddam of WMD ... though it may have not yet materialized but it is enough grounds to posses such amount of raw materials being brewed for something only the Butcher knew whats under his sleeves . That provisions though was for the purpose of SCIENTIFIC STUDY during the time where it was needed for research and not for warfare though we'll never know since a lot of clouded conspiracy theories surfaced out . Contrary to Powells agenda also .. we cant be certain since we dont know whats in it for him either .

Two years later, Powell himself would say they had gotten the intelligence on Saddam's weapons stockpiles "dead wrong."

To make an analogy, the USA was like the person that screamed bloody murder, organized a posse of townsfolk and lynched the person he thought responsible. Only to realize later on a murder hadn't even been committed.

Saddams weapons revealed as DEAD WRONG was pointed as WMD's , weapons of mass destruction . That is true , he did not point it out though to the RAW INGREDIENTS intended for the WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION .

[Tarmac]

I can partly agree on that thus the reason also why Blair was removed by the parliament . But I rather call it LIBERATION than INVASION by nature and not by definition . Liberation from twisted ideas and not only by destabilizing Saddam regime .

Saddams weapons revealed as DEAD WRONG was pointed as WMD's , weapons of mass destruction . That is true , he did not point it out though to the RAW INGREDIENTS intended for the WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION .

Had Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq must be invaded to liberate its people from a dictatorship, he would have gotten very few votes.

Had he said Saddam should be stopped for mere possession of materials, the United Nations would never have approved of going to war.

It was the USA's insistence that there was a clear and present danger, that Saddam had stockpiles stashed in cavernous underground bunkers, that turned the tide of opinion its way. Like I said before, North Korea and Iran are further along in their nuclear arms development program than Saddam was supposed to have been in 2003, but there is hardly any talk of invasion.

There was a skit on one of the late night shows (Conan O' Brien or Jay Leno) where a Rumsfeld lookalike was being interviewed (actually a photo of Rumsfeld with a moving mouth put in).

Q: Mr. Secretary, are you going to invade North Korea?
A: No, we don't plan to invade North Korea. Not unless they strike first. Not unless they strike oil first!

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Had Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq must be invaded to liberate its people from a dictatorship, he would have gotten very few votes.

Had he said Saddam should be stopped for mere possession of materials, the United Nations would never have approved of going to war.

It was the USA's insistence that there was a clear and present danger, that Saddam had stockpiles stashed in cavernous underground bunkers, that turned the tide of opinion its way. Like I said before, North Korea and Iran are further along in their nuclear arms development program than Saddam was supposed to have been in 2003, but there is hardly any talk of invasion.

It doesnt make any sense basing on the statements you released . It contradicts , How can US of A insist of INVADING according to you as a choice of term when in fact United Nations cant approved a war without any probable cause ? US of A is not the UNITED NATIONS and heck Uncle Sam can go its own way without anyones help but then why was the coalition tandem of powerful nations capable of setting up a LIBERATION of a nation ?

There was a sketch on one of the late night shows (Conan O' Brien or Jay Leno) where a Rumsfeld lookalike was being interviewed (actually a photo of Rumsfeld with a moving mouth put in).

Q: Mr. Secretary, are you going to invade North Korea?
A: No, we don't plan to invade North Korea. Not unless they strike first. Not unless they strike oil first!

If its not politicaly hilarious , then its propaganda in its purest form .

[Tarmac]

It doesnt make any sense basing on the statements you released . It contradicts , How can US of A insist of INVADING according to you as a choice of term when in fact United Nations cant approved a war without any probable cause ? US of A is not the UNITED NATIONS and heck Uncle Sam can go its own way without anyones help but then why was the coalition tandem of powerful nations capable of setting up a LIBERATION of a nation ?

If its not politicaly hilarious , then its propaganda in its purest form .

Conan O' Brien = propaganda? Irreverent, maybe, but propaganda?

You like to use the term "probable cause," that the UN went to war because there was "probable cause." Let me point out that in any decent, civilized court of law, probable cause alone isn't enough to get people hanged. The correct standard for any criminal prosecution is "proof beyond reasonable doubt."

Probable cause is only enough to bring a person to court and have him tried. For that person to be imprisoned or executed, the prosecution has to prove he is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt."

In the community of nations, that standard too should be applied especially when thousands, even millions of lives are at stake. The bombing of Pearl Harbor served as proof beyond any reasonable doubt of Japanese aggression towards the United States. America's reason for going to war was clear and unambiguous. More importantly, it was just.

The United States could have acted alone, true. But doing so would have alienated it from the rest of the world and the invasion (or liberation if you prefer) of Iraq would not have been imbued with any sense of it being a just cause. They needed UN consensus so it wouldn't be accused of unilateralism. The United States led nations to believe they had proof beyond reasonable doubt that Saddam posed a clear and present danger. The United Nations believed the United States (with the exception of France, Germany, Russia, China and a number of other nations). Unfortunately, the proof turned out to be false (by its own admission later on) and the credibility of the United States suffered a gigantic blow, one that Barack Obama is working so hard to restore now.

The United States is not infallible. No nation is. Unfortunately, when the United States makes a mistake on this scale, millions of lives are affected.

Although the war in Iraq has become an unpopular one, at least the people of the United States have not made the Vietnam-era mistake of taking it out on the soldiers fighting that war. Now, the men and women serving in Iraq enjoy tremendous support back home even though the leaders who sent them there do not.

We're embroiled in semantics and are now talking in circles. Anyway, this has been a most informative and interesting discussion. We've all expressed our sides in a civil manner. Hearing from all sides is always a good thing; keeping the discussion civilized, as we have, without degenerating into mud-slinging and name calling, is even better.

At the end of the day, nothing we say on this forum will influence world events, or have any bearing on US policy towards the Philippines. We agree on many points, and disagree on some. We probably won't convince each other otherwise anytime soon. Let's agree to disagree then.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming.

[istoryaaah]

go Tarmac!!!

I agree 100% that a sovereign country under any circumstance whatsoever should not be persecuted nor judge by mere "probable cause".

Also, sovereignty as defined by our forefathers

Sovereignty is the right to exercise, within a territory, the functions of a state, exclusive of any other state, or Kingdom and subject to no other authority.

denounces the fact that US intervened with Iraq's sovereignty and provoked the so called "preventive war". None of the other countries have the right to impose its regulations on other countries unless it violates international laws of which the US "lied" about. Pif, weapon's of mass destruction? there were no weapons, only OIL... America's best selling product. lol...

World’s Top Oil Consuming Countries 2006

1. United States … 21 million barrels per day (up 18.6% from 1994)
2. China … 7 mbpd (up 118.8%)
3. Japan … 5.4 mbpd (down 6.9%)
4. India … 2.7 mbpd (up 92.9%)
5. Russia … 2.7 mbpd (down 18.2%)
6. Germany … 2.5 mbpd (down 13.8%)
7. Canada … 2.3 mbpd (up 21.1%)
8. South Korea … 2.2 mbpd (up 22.2%)
9. Brazil … 2.2 mbpd (up 57.1%)
10. Mexico … 2.1 mbpd (up 50%)

source: Top Oil Consuming Countries: Nations Most Dependent On World?s Best Oil Producers

Top Ten Oil Importing Countries

• United States (11.8 million barrels per day)
• Japan (5.3)
• China (2.9)
• Germany (2.5)
• South Korea (2.1)
• France (2.0)
• Italy (1.7)
• Spain (1.6)
• India (1.5)
• Taiwan (1.0)

Top Ten Oil Exporting Countries

• Saudi Arabia (8.73 million barrels per day)
• Russia (6.67)
• Norway (2.91)
• Iran (2.55)
• Venezuela (2.36)
• United Arab Emirates (2.33)
• Kuwait (2.20)
• Nigeria (2.19)
• Mexico (1.80)
• Algeria (1.6

Hmm.. Now where's Iraq?

The following countries have strong reserves to compete effectively in global oil trade.
Greatest Oil Reserves by Country (2005)

• Saudi Arabia (262 billion barrels)
• Canada (179)
• Iran (126)
• Iraq (115)
• Kuwait (102)
• United Arab Emirates (9
• Venezuela (77)
• Russia (60)
• Libya (39)
• Nigeria (35)

For more details on OPEC oil producing countries, see Most Powerful Oil Countries.

LOL, There you go... funny I see Iran and Iraq together... :P in which cases are not so friendly with the US... I wonder why? :P