Why are we angry with the Philippines?

by philg

While I’ve been “oot and aboot” (as the Canadians say) with N505WT the natives seem to have become restless and angry with the Philippines.  From what I read the Filipinos were in Iraq on a “humanitarian” mission.  One of their guys was kidnapped so they went home.  So now we Americans are pissed off that they caved into the demands of the kidnappers/beheaders.  None of the newspaper articles that I saw, however, questioned the original purpose.  Though some Iraqis appear on CNN to complain that they don’t have air-conditioning and 24/7 running water it is hard to see them as a hardship case in a world where many people have never had A/C or running water.  Shouldn’t “humanitarian” missions go to places where either (a) folks are really doing badly, (b) folks are genuinely grateful for assistance, (c) folks are living right next door to us (charity begins at home), or (d) all of the above?

19 thoughts on “Why are we angry with the Philippines?”

  2. The trouble is that the whole shebang (war and so on) is now being justified as a humanitarian operation. There’s not much else going in way of justification anymore.

    It’s sickening to think of how much could have been done if the war’s budget (What was it, 90 billion?) had been handed over to humanitarian professionals rather than the US and UK military.I think the annual budget of the world food programme is something like 1 or 2 billion.

  3. There was a lot of pressure from the US for other countries to get involved in the situation over there. It didn’t really matter what, just get over there to make it look more like an international effort.

    I would guess the Phillipines didn’t really want to get involved but they sent a few troops there under pressure. Now they are the brunt of criticism over pulling out. This unfortunately teaches those who cave in to such pressures how they can be treated when they change their minds.

    Unfortunately, actually caving in to the demands of these groups to leave has embolded them to do much more of the same.

  5. Phillipines: On the outlying islands, a significant percentage of the population has it worse than the Iraqi’s (sewer/electricity/water). OK so the Phillipines got bought-off by Washington (aid, in return for “joining the coalition”). This is just the way the world works. As for “pulling out”, a significant portion of the Phillipine economy depends on foreign employment (can’t risk losing that). If the Phillipines are anything like I recall from the ’70’s (Navy deployment to Subic Bay) then hey the country has a *lot* going for it despite 3rd-world issues. Sometimes, you’ve got to know “when to fold ’em” and the Phillipines did just that. Smart.

  6. I think that every american should wonder what the us public’s benefits could be from the $100B us has spent in the iraqi desert.

    Public education
    health system
    alternate fuel research

    Of course this administration would never raise taxes to support these initiatives. They would rather burden some future administration with a deficit based on an ‘urgent’ call for war.

    Frankly, if the us public continues to fall for this crap and vote -deleted- into office, then they deserve what they get.

    Can anybody remember just a few years ago when a us president formed effective international coalitions, removed despots form power without loss of us lives and created a plan to erase the deficit???

    Oh yeah, he was attacked (at tax payer cost) on trumped up charges (that were never proven) and eventually hounded for attempting to shield his family from a tryst with an intern.

    Only in america…

  7. Gary, do you mean the U.S. president that sat on his ass while one million people were slaughtered in Rwanda? The one that attacked a sudanese aspirin factory with faulty CIA evidence, without U.N. consultation, without inspections, because… Irak and Al-Qaeda were cooperating producing WMDs in it?

    Or do you mean a different one?

  8. If you invade a country and fuck it up, you’re kind of obligated to provide humanitarian aid and rebuild it.

  9. So Paul…
    Which one of those actions (or inactions) cost the us taxpayers $100Billion dollars, a multi-year commitment to re-build another nation and the lives of several hundred us servicepeople?

    I have heard all of the petty crap that gets thrown at Clinton, what I am amazed by is the amount of restraint that democrats in general have used in referring to the shortcomings of the current president.

  10. me2i81,

    I didn’t invade anything. In fact, I asked that we not invade. I marched, I phoned, I pleaded with senators and congressmen that we not go into Iraq. What, then, am I obligated to do? More importantly, who in America would ever have backed something like the invasion of Iraq if they really knew what they were getting into, let alone the slim chances that the Iraqi people would really be better off in the long run?

  11. The simple answer to the headline is this: because US media tells you to.

    And they don’t dare say anyhting else as that would reflect badly on the goverment, something that could mean a different one is elected. That is undesirable because they would have to make the initial investment for paying them off again, instead of the lower ongoing monthly installments if Dubya and the republicans stay in power.

    So: fear and hate sells adds + same goverment is lower lobying costs = more profit!

  12. Well, Gary, I suppose it all depends of what your priorities are, doesn’t it? I mean, I would have thought that the death of 1 million people would be pretty damning enough against any statesman. Or that attacking a foreign country without U.N. approval, based on fake evidence would be cause enough for criticism (as it has happened with Bush).

    However, based on what I just read, you’re basically saying that letting one million africans die is “petty crap”, if it saves you a few dollars in your tax returns in exchange. Well, you’re entitled to that opinion, I guess, although it surprises me that you dare to flaunt it in a public forum.

  14. Gee PaulJ you’re pretty quick to paint me with a broad brush… I talk about right-wing carping being petty crap and all of a sudden I’m flushing tutsi babies down the toilet. Here broaden your mind a little:

    http://www.africaaction.org/bp/ethcen.htm

    There are many points here, I’ll take two.
    1. There are constant and continuing ethnic conflicts. They are barbarous and dispicable…
    2. Since when was the us the ‘cop on the block’ for the planet? The us performed admirably in the first and second world wars. Wars that the us was drug into only after long delay and the certainity that their allies would fall to aggressive forces.

    By rushing into conflict without clear justification we bear resemblance to germany attacking czechoslavakia to ‘save’ the german speaking minority. When it comes to war, discretion _is_ the better part of valor.

  15. Actually something that Phil should point out is that the Philippines has 3 terrorist groups of their own, and of those, 2 are connected to international Muslim terrorism (Abu Sayyaf and MILF).

    Having dealt with terrorists in a foreign country, the Philippines gov’t now has little rational reason to refuse negotiations with their home-grown terrorits.

    Further, what if next time they kidnap 10 Filipinos, and the demand is to deal with MILF or Abu Sayyaf, or else? What will they do then?

  16. When you consider the 8.3 trillion the US spent on nuclear preparedness during the cold war, 100 billion for Iraq seems like chump change. What do you think we could have accomplished with 8.3 trillion? Of course this has nothing to do with our hypocrisy directed at the Philippine government. Is it even our place to criticize?

  17. I would suppose that the $1.3T was spent over a period of 40-odd years (and i would even bet that it was adjusted to y2k dollars).

    Just think what the total would be to run the current (Iraq only, not the entire defence budget of $500B/year) $50B/year burn rate out over 40 years… That’s better than $2T total

    Oh yeah, the $1.3T was spent confronting totalitarian dictatorships globally. I think that we were getting a lot better use out of our money those days.

    At least with a the old soviet union you had one series of five-year plans to confront. With the grid structure of islamic terrorism we will need to deal with a thousand different plans and organizations….

    I think that it will be in our best interest to figure out what will placate 80% of the current crop of radicals. Once that they are fat ‘n happy it should much easier to quell the remaining hard cases.

  18. The Philippino withdrawal shows the folly of going to war with weak allies. The “Coalition of the willing” was slapped together for political purposes, but the level of commitment required was pathetically low (50 soldiers!?).

    Instead of being reduced to begging the Philippines, Bulgaria, and Australia to stay, the President should ask all of the weak hands to leave forthwith. They serve no military purpose. And the political purposes they serve now are no longer those of the US, they are those of the insurgents.

  19. The condition now in the philippines politics signifies, turncoatism’balimbing’, it refers to a tropical fruit that looks alike in all angles, no correct figures. March 16, 1900 taft commision was the first legislative, under american commission carrying out its functions. History revealed american has done a major role to the philippines, all affairs, I appeal as a filipino citizen no charter change but return to original, american laws………..thanks..

Comments are closed.