rushmc 23 #76 September 9, 2004 QuoteWell how do you describe occupying a country? Frankly it really doesn't matter how we describe it if the people living in the country feel they are occupied then they are. But in this case that doesn't even matter. What matters is do the extremists think that the US is occupying Iraq? If they do they then use it as a recruitment tool. They use it to direct hatred towards the US which makes the US and Americans overseas less safe than they were in the past because it is more likely that additional attacks will be pulled off. OK. let us say you are right. Should we also say that if we had stayed out of Iraq we would not be a target anymore? Would your argument be that we would not be targeted as much? Russia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! (Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) You can not give an example of where agreeing to a terrorist demand stopped the violence. There is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #77 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #78 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946. You love that one don't you. I do not know the facts around this one but some how, based on other posts, there is most likely some spin in here some place but I can't debate this one............"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #79 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946. You love that one don't you. I do not know the facts around this one but some how, based on other posts, there is most likely some spin in here some place but I can't debate this one............ I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic. Read this and see if it doesn't sound like Iraq 2004. "During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled. As Howard Zinn notes in his People's History of the United States, the "Filipinos did not get the same message from God" and the resistance to US military intervention began in 1899 in what has remained, up to the present time, organized efforts by Filipinos in opposition to US interference. Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers. In The Philippines Reader, Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom provide first hand accounts of this period. On February 5, 1899 Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo urged his people to fight in response to the "outbreak of hostilities between the Philippine forces and the American forces of occupation, (which were) unjustly and unexpectedly provoked by the latter.... The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused the misery of the people...and finally the useless conferences and contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty." The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him." In response to a massacre of 54 Americans by the Filipino resistance in Samar, Francisco describes how US General "Howling Jake" Smith launched a "reign of terror" on the island. "Kill and burn..." Smith said "the more you kill and burn the more you'll please me." When asked the age limit for killing, he said, "Everything over ten." The order from Smith was that Samar becomes a "howling wilderness" so that "even the birds could not live there." The Americans had begun to utilize the deadly "water torture" against Filipinos - forcing huge amounts of water into their stomachs to then gather information - and Smith insisted on its use in Samar. There were four US regiments of Black soldiers in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War. Many were outraged at the abuses and attitude of the white soldiers toward the Filipinos. Zinn refers to a letter from a volunteer from the state of Washington who wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers'.... this shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." David Fagan, one of the Black soldiers, left the US ranks to fight along side Filipinos and "for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." The Philippine resistance fought valiantly against the well-armed Americans. Francisco states that the "Filipinos had to adapt to their limitations as best they could...with darts, the ubiquitous bolo, and even stones, prompting (US) General Lawton to remark, 'they are the bravest men I have ever seen'...." It is also noteworthy that once the Americans captured Aguinaldo in April 1901 they expected hostilities to cease and were "dismayed" that this was not the case. As the movement against the American presence had massive support, the fighting continued "unabated." This revelation led the leader of the US campaign, General Arthur MacArthur, to resign. The American policy was so brutal that even American personnel were skeptical. Francisco quotes a US civil servant in the Philippines at the time who said that because of the "burning, torture and other harsh treatments" the Americans were "sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution. If these things need to be done, they had best be done by native troops so that the people of the U.S. will not be credited therewith." Obviously this warning was heeded, as in 1901 the Americans created the Philippine Constabulary, comprised of Filipinos, who would work at the behest of and ruthlessly serve US interests during the U.S. colonization of the Philippines. With its creation of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), the United States launched its "low intensity conflict" (LIC) strategy in the Philippines - in other words "don't get the US hands dirty, let someone else do the brutal work." So while it might be "low" intensity for the United States, it is exceptionally "high" intensity for its victims. The PC is still in existence today, and its reactionary and mercenary origins have remained in tact. Throughout the 20th century it has played a key role in suppressing peasant revolts and anti-US intervention movements. At the end of World War II the Americans claim to have given the Philippines its independence. The US, however, insisted on maintaining a military presence in the country, with its major bases being Subic Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base. In return for these bases the US offered the Filipino elite the creation of the "Joint US Military Advisory Group" (JUSMAG) to help reassert its authority over the peasant movements for land reform and other issues objectionable to them."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #80 September 9, 2004 I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic.Quote That is not what I said! spin spin spin What I found shows some bad choices but does not indicate an "occupation" Read this THE FIRST PHASE OF UNITED STATES RULE, 1898-1935 Traditional horsedrawn calesa cart Courtesy Robert L. Worden On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, and including Admiral Dewey and General Otis, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools. The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities. From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The two houses would share legislative powers, although the upper house alone would pass laws relating to the Moros and other non-Christian peoples. The act also provided for extending the United States Bill of Rights to Filipinos and sending two Filipino resident commissioners to Washington to attend sessions of the United States Congress. In July 1907, the first elections for the assembly were held, and it opened its first session on October 16, 1907. Political parties were organized, and, although open advocacy of independence had been banned during the insurgency years, criticism of government policies in the local newspapers was tolerated. Taft, the Philippines' first civilian governor, outlined a comprehensive development plan that he described as "the Philippines for the Filipinos . . . that every measure, whether in the form of a law or an executive order, before its adoption, should be weighed in the light of this question: Does it make for the welfare of the Filipino people, or does it not?" Its main features included not only broadening representative institutions but also expanding a system of free public elementary education and designing economic policies to promote the islands' development. Filipinos widely interpreted Taft's pronouncements as a promise of independence. The 1902 Philippine Organic Act disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for US$7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares, of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners. Data as of June 1991"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #81 September 9, 2004 Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #82 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #83 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #84 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation??? No, that's a national disgrace.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #85 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #86 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #87 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #88 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Allright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 September 9, 2004 QuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #90 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #92 September 9, 2004 QuoteRussia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! Umm, it had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with Chechnya. Quote(Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) Proof that our actions in Iraq did nothing to stop them, so how are we safer? QuoteThere is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. Actually, they don't understand that, in fact they welcome it. What history should have taught us is that they are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should, expecially in Afghanistan. But at the same time we need to figure out what ELSE we can do to mitigate the hatred directed at us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement. No I did not! What you call "occupation" I do not. In my opinion we are not "occupying" Iraq. You call it that."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #94 September 9, 2004 "Never has this country occupied another" So you're using Doublespeak. The history books call the US occupation of the Philippines an "occupation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #95 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
rushmc 23 #78 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946. You love that one don't you. I do not know the facts around this one but some how, based on other posts, there is most likely some spin in here some place but I can't debate this one............"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #79 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946. You love that one don't you. I do not know the facts around this one but some how, based on other posts, there is most likely some spin in here some place but I can't debate this one............ I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic. Read this and see if it doesn't sound like Iraq 2004. "During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled. As Howard Zinn notes in his People's History of the United States, the "Filipinos did not get the same message from God" and the resistance to US military intervention began in 1899 in what has remained, up to the present time, organized efforts by Filipinos in opposition to US interference. Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers. In The Philippines Reader, Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom provide first hand accounts of this period. On February 5, 1899 Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo urged his people to fight in response to the "outbreak of hostilities between the Philippine forces and the American forces of occupation, (which were) unjustly and unexpectedly provoked by the latter.... The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused the misery of the people...and finally the useless conferences and contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty." The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him." In response to a massacre of 54 Americans by the Filipino resistance in Samar, Francisco describes how US General "Howling Jake" Smith launched a "reign of terror" on the island. "Kill and burn..." Smith said "the more you kill and burn the more you'll please me." When asked the age limit for killing, he said, "Everything over ten." The order from Smith was that Samar becomes a "howling wilderness" so that "even the birds could not live there." The Americans had begun to utilize the deadly "water torture" against Filipinos - forcing huge amounts of water into their stomachs to then gather information - and Smith insisted on its use in Samar. There were four US regiments of Black soldiers in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War. Many were outraged at the abuses and attitude of the white soldiers toward the Filipinos. Zinn refers to a letter from a volunteer from the state of Washington who wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers'.... this shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." David Fagan, one of the Black soldiers, left the US ranks to fight along side Filipinos and "for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." The Philippine resistance fought valiantly against the well-armed Americans. Francisco states that the "Filipinos had to adapt to their limitations as best they could...with darts, the ubiquitous bolo, and even stones, prompting (US) General Lawton to remark, 'they are the bravest men I have ever seen'...." It is also noteworthy that once the Americans captured Aguinaldo in April 1901 they expected hostilities to cease and were "dismayed" that this was not the case. As the movement against the American presence had massive support, the fighting continued "unabated." This revelation led the leader of the US campaign, General Arthur MacArthur, to resign. The American policy was so brutal that even American personnel were skeptical. Francisco quotes a US civil servant in the Philippines at the time who said that because of the "burning, torture and other harsh treatments" the Americans were "sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution. If these things need to be done, they had best be done by native troops so that the people of the U.S. will not be credited therewith." Obviously this warning was heeded, as in 1901 the Americans created the Philippine Constabulary, comprised of Filipinos, who would work at the behest of and ruthlessly serve US interests during the U.S. colonization of the Philippines. With its creation of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), the United States launched its "low intensity conflict" (LIC) strategy in the Philippines - in other words "don't get the US hands dirty, let someone else do the brutal work." So while it might be "low" intensity for the United States, it is exceptionally "high" intensity for its victims. The PC is still in existence today, and its reactionary and mercenary origins have remained in tact. Throughout the 20th century it has played a key role in suppressing peasant revolts and anti-US intervention movements. At the end of World War II the Americans claim to have given the Philippines its independence. The US, however, insisted on maintaining a military presence in the country, with its major bases being Subic Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base. In return for these bases the US offered the Filipino elite the creation of the "Joint US Military Advisory Group" (JUSMAG) to help reassert its authority over the peasant movements for land reform and other issues objectionable to them."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #80 September 9, 2004 I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic.Quote That is not what I said! spin spin spin What I found shows some bad choices but does not indicate an "occupation" Read this THE FIRST PHASE OF UNITED STATES RULE, 1898-1935 Traditional horsedrawn calesa cart Courtesy Robert L. Worden On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, and including Admiral Dewey and General Otis, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools. The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities. From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The two houses would share legislative powers, although the upper house alone would pass laws relating to the Moros and other non-Christian peoples. The act also provided for extending the United States Bill of Rights to Filipinos and sending two Filipino resident commissioners to Washington to attend sessions of the United States Congress. In July 1907, the first elections for the assembly were held, and it opened its first session on October 16, 1907. Political parties were organized, and, although open advocacy of independence had been banned during the insurgency years, criticism of government policies in the local newspapers was tolerated. Taft, the Philippines' first civilian governor, outlined a comprehensive development plan that he described as "the Philippines for the Filipinos . . . that every measure, whether in the form of a law or an executive order, before its adoption, should be weighed in the light of this question: Does it make for the welfare of the Filipino people, or does it not?" Its main features included not only broadening representative institutions but also expanding a system of free public elementary education and designing economic policies to promote the islands' development. Filipinos widely interpreted Taft's pronouncements as a promise of independence. The 1902 Philippine Organic Act disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for US$7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares, of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners. Data as of June 1991"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #81 September 9, 2004 Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #82 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #83 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #84 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation??? No, that's a national disgrace.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #85 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #86 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #87 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #88 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Allright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 September 9, 2004 QuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #90 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #92 September 9, 2004 QuoteRussia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! Umm, it had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with Chechnya. Quote(Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) Proof that our actions in Iraq did nothing to stop them, so how are we safer? QuoteThere is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. Actually, they don't understand that, in fact they welcome it. What history should have taught us is that they are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should, expecially in Afghanistan. But at the same time we need to figure out what ELSE we can do to mitigate the hatred directed at us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement. No I did not! What you call "occupation" I do not. In my opinion we are not "occupying" Iraq. You call it that."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #94 September 9, 2004 "Never has this country occupied another" So you're using Doublespeak. The history books call the US occupation of the Philippines an "occupation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #95 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,147 #79 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it Like the US did with the Philippines 1898 - 1946. You love that one don't you. I do not know the facts around this one but some how, based on other posts, there is most likely some spin in here some place but I can't debate this one............ I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic. Read this and see if it doesn't sound like Iraq 2004. "During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled. As Howard Zinn notes in his People's History of the United States, the "Filipinos did not get the same message from God" and the resistance to US military intervention began in 1899 in what has remained, up to the present time, organized efforts by Filipinos in opposition to US interference. Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers. In The Philippines Reader, Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom provide first hand accounts of this period. On February 5, 1899 Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo urged his people to fight in response to the "outbreak of hostilities between the Philippine forces and the American forces of occupation, (which were) unjustly and unexpectedly provoked by the latter.... The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused the misery of the people...and finally the useless conferences and contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty." The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him." In response to a massacre of 54 Americans by the Filipino resistance in Samar, Francisco describes how US General "Howling Jake" Smith launched a "reign of terror" on the island. "Kill and burn..." Smith said "the more you kill and burn the more you'll please me." When asked the age limit for killing, he said, "Everything over ten." The order from Smith was that Samar becomes a "howling wilderness" so that "even the birds could not live there." The Americans had begun to utilize the deadly "water torture" against Filipinos - forcing huge amounts of water into their stomachs to then gather information - and Smith insisted on its use in Samar. There were four US regiments of Black soldiers in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War. Many were outraged at the abuses and attitude of the white soldiers toward the Filipinos. Zinn refers to a letter from a volunteer from the state of Washington who wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers'.... this shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." David Fagan, one of the Black soldiers, left the US ranks to fight along side Filipinos and "for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." The Philippine resistance fought valiantly against the well-armed Americans. Francisco states that the "Filipinos had to adapt to their limitations as best they could...with darts, the ubiquitous bolo, and even stones, prompting (US) General Lawton to remark, 'they are the bravest men I have ever seen'...." It is also noteworthy that once the Americans captured Aguinaldo in April 1901 they expected hostilities to cease and were "dismayed" that this was not the case. As the movement against the American presence had massive support, the fighting continued "unabated." This revelation led the leader of the US campaign, General Arthur MacArthur, to resign. The American policy was so brutal that even American personnel were skeptical. Francisco quotes a US civil servant in the Philippines at the time who said that because of the "burning, torture and other harsh treatments" the Americans were "sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution. If these things need to be done, they had best be done by native troops so that the people of the U.S. will not be credited therewith." Obviously this warning was heeded, as in 1901 the Americans created the Philippine Constabulary, comprised of Filipinos, who would work at the behest of and ruthlessly serve US interests during the U.S. colonization of the Philippines. With its creation of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), the United States launched its "low intensity conflict" (LIC) strategy in the Philippines - in other words "don't get the US hands dirty, let someone else do the brutal work." So while it might be "low" intensity for the United States, it is exceptionally "high" intensity for its victims. The PC is still in existence today, and its reactionary and mercenary origins have remained in tact. Throughout the 20th century it has played a key role in suppressing peasant revolts and anti-US intervention movements. At the end of World War II the Americans claim to have given the Philippines its independence. The US, however, insisted on maintaining a military presence in the country, with its major bases being Subic Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base. In return for these bases the US offered the Filipino elite the creation of the "Joint US Military Advisory Group" (JUSMAG) to help reassert its authority over the peasant movements for land reform and other issues objectionable to them."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #80 September 9, 2004 I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic.Quote That is not what I said! spin spin spin What I found shows some bad choices but does not indicate an "occupation" Read this THE FIRST PHASE OF UNITED STATES RULE, 1898-1935 Traditional horsedrawn calesa cart Courtesy Robert L. Worden On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, and including Admiral Dewey and General Otis, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools. The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities. From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The two houses would share legislative powers, although the upper house alone would pass laws relating to the Moros and other non-Christian peoples. The act also provided for extending the United States Bill of Rights to Filipinos and sending two Filipino resident commissioners to Washington to attend sessions of the United States Congress. In July 1907, the first elections for the assembly were held, and it opened its first session on October 16, 1907. Political parties were organized, and, although open advocacy of independence had been banned during the insurgency years, criticism of government policies in the local newspapers was tolerated. Taft, the Philippines' first civilian governor, outlined a comprehensive development plan that he described as "the Philippines for the Filipinos . . . that every measure, whether in the form of a law or an executive order, before its adoption, should be weighed in the light of this question: Does it make for the welfare of the Filipino people, or does it not?" Its main features included not only broadening representative institutions but also expanding a system of free public elementary education and designing economic policies to promote the islands' development. Filipinos widely interpreted Taft's pronouncements as a promise of independence. The 1902 Philippine Organic Act disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for US$7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares, of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners. Data as of June 1991"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #81 September 9, 2004 Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #82 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #83 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #84 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation??? No, that's a national disgrace.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #85 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #86 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #87 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #88 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Allright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 September 9, 2004 QuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #90 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #92 September 9, 2004 QuoteRussia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! Umm, it had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with Chechnya. Quote(Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) Proof that our actions in Iraq did nothing to stop them, so how are we safer? QuoteThere is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. Actually, they don't understand that, in fact they welcome it. What history should have taught us is that they are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should, expecially in Afghanistan. But at the same time we need to figure out what ELSE we can do to mitigate the hatred directed at us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement. No I did not! What you call "occupation" I do not. In my opinion we are not "occupying" Iraq. You call it that."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #94 September 9, 2004 "Never has this country occupied another" So you're using Doublespeak. The history books call the US occupation of the Philippines an "occupation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #95 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #80 September 9, 2004 I see, you don't know anything about it, except that I'm wrong! Nice logic.Quote That is not what I said! spin spin spin What I found shows some bad choices but does not indicate an "occupation" Read this THE FIRST PHASE OF UNITED STATES RULE, 1898-1935 Traditional horsedrawn calesa cart Courtesy Robert L. Worden On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, and including Admiral Dewey and General Otis, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools. The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities. From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The two houses would share legislative powers, although the upper house alone would pass laws relating to the Moros and other non-Christian peoples. The act also provided for extending the United States Bill of Rights to Filipinos and sending two Filipino resident commissioners to Washington to attend sessions of the United States Congress. In July 1907, the first elections for the assembly were held, and it opened its first session on October 16, 1907. Political parties were organized, and, although open advocacy of independence had been banned during the insurgency years, criticism of government policies in the local newspapers was tolerated. Taft, the Philippines' first civilian governor, outlined a comprehensive development plan that he described as "the Philippines for the Filipinos . . . that every measure, whether in the form of a law or an executive order, before its adoption, should be weighed in the light of this question: Does it make for the welfare of the Filipino people, or does it not?" Its main features included not only broadening representative institutions but also expanding a system of free public elementary education and designing economic policies to promote the islands' development. Filipinos widely interpreted Taft's pronouncements as a promise of independence. The 1902 Philippine Organic Act disestablished the Catholic Church as the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars, negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the administration bought for US$7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some 166,000 hectares, of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners. Data as of June 1991"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #81 September 9, 2004 Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #82 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #83 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #84 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation??? No, that's a national disgrace.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #85 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #86 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #87 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #88 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Allright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #89 September 9, 2004 QuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #90 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #91 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #92 September 9, 2004 QuoteRussia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! Umm, it had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with Chechnya. Quote(Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) Proof that our actions in Iraq did nothing to stop them, so how are we safer? QuoteThere is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. Actually, they don't understand that, in fact they welcome it. What history should have taught us is that they are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should, expecially in Afghanistan. But at the same time we need to figure out what ELSE we can do to mitigate the hatred directed at us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement. No I did not! What you call "occupation" I do not. In my opinion we are not "occupying" Iraq. You call it that."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #94 September 9, 2004 "Never has this country occupied another" So you're using Doublespeak. The history books call the US occupation of the Philippines an "occupation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #95 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,147 #81 September 9, 2004 Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #83 September 9, 2004 Quote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #84 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. Tell me, do you think Bush in the White House is an occupation??? No, that's a national disgrace.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #85 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #86 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #87 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #88 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Of course it was an occupation. The US occupied the Philippines by military force and stayed for 48 years. Right wing Doublespeak won't help you. spin spin spin wwwhhhhheeeeeeeeeee You cannot dispute the facts so you call names. Typical. See how many hits this gets you: www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=US+occupation+of+the+Philippines What names?? I already did that search. You and I do not agree but the articles are similar to when we were in Japan, Germany and Iraq........ You are making yourself look silly. You said: "By the way, my definition of occupation is taking over the country and keeping it" By your definition Britain never occupied India, USSR never occupied Poland or Hungary.... The US occupied the Philippines for longer than the USSR occupied Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Allright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #89 September 9, 2004 QuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #90 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #91 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #92 September 9, 2004 QuoteRussia stayed out of Iraq and voted against the US going in. That did not stop the terrorist from killing thier children! Umm, it had nothing to do with Iraq, it had to do with Chechnya. Quote(Islamic extremist terrorist by the way) Proof that our actions in Iraq did nothing to stop them, so how are we safer? QuoteThere is only one thing these kind of people understand and that is the business end of a gun. Sad but that is just the way it is. That is what history has taught us. Actually, they don't understand that, in fact they welcome it. What history should have taught us is that they are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should, expecially in Afghanistan. But at the same time we need to figure out what ELSE we can do to mitigate the hatred directed at us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #93 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAllright Were we run out by force? Come on, you know what I mean. For what ever reasons we went in and eventualy left by once we felt the country was ready. Arrogant? maybe, but we did not keep them as out own. As for your time frame and other country arguments? ??????? Irrelevant Was Britain run out of India by force? No. Was the USSR run out of Poland by force? No. You are just making yourself look silly with your sophomoric arguments. The US did occupy the Philippines for 48 years. I have no clue what point you are trying to make! Sorry I am so stupid but I guess that comes natural for "Right Wingers" Hmmm - can't remember your own posts? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1236394#1236394 In which you made an untrue statement. No I did not! What you call "occupation" I do not. In my opinion we are not "occupying" Iraq. You call it that."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #94 September 9, 2004 "Never has this country occupied another" So you're using Doublespeak. The history books call the US occupation of the Philippines an "occupation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #95 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,147 #96 September 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You would have opposed the U.S. involvement in Europe in WWII? Given that Germany declared war on the USA in 1941, that would have been impossible. I guess you wish to revise history. Given that Al QUeda declared war on the USA in 92... I guess we have to go after them too where ever they are. Hense Afganistan. Then we go into Iraq as a tactical move to get more troops in an area of the world where Al queda runs rampant. Can't have the argument both ways. Sounds like you approve of Germany's invasion of neutral Holland and Belgium in 1940, since it was just a tactical move to get troops into France. Nice precedent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
storm1977 0 #97 September 9, 2004 Well, yes.... If I believed in Germany's cause. I didn't however, much like the muslims do not believe in the cause of the USA. Doesn't make them right though. From a tactical perspective it was a "good Move" for germany :-) Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #98 September 11, 2004 Quotethey are willing and happy to die for their cause and every one that we kill begets 2 new recruits. I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the terrorists, we should If your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #99 September 11, 2004 Killing them in general is not the answer. Figuring out why they hate us and changing our behavior where justified might be. i am not saying we should all live under Islamic law by any means. However maybe we should stop trying to enforfe our views on the rest of the world now that the cold war is over. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #100 September 11, 2004 QuoteIf your first statement is true, then we should NOT hunt down the terrorists. We would never be finished. No, you truncated the rest of my statement. Doing nothing else about the problem but ONLY being aggressive and violent is what makes that statement true. The point is we have to do that AND take other measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
