US Deploys Troops to Philippines

From the Associated Press:

Washington — Hundreds of U.S. special operations troops will soon join Philippine forces in combat operations against Abu Sayyaf rebels in the southern Philippines, defence officials said Thursday.

The American and Philippine governments agreed to an arrangement that will place U.S. troops in direct combat roles against the Abu Sayyaf for the first time since the U.S. military began advising the Philippine armed forces in counterterrorism tactics last year, the officials said.

The deal marks a major escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Philippines.

About 350 U.S. special operations forces, mostly Army Green Berets, will be involved in the offensive in the Sulu Archipelago, with much of the effort focused on the island of Jolo, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They will be supported by about 400 more U.S. troops based to the north in the port city of Zamboanga.

Read the whole article here (or on any newspaper's site, most probably):
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/.../International



This is the type of operation the US military should be engaging in - small unit special forces actions against actual terrorists, not bombing Saddam Hussein and his 15 barrels of harmless anthrax buried in the desert with hundreds of thousands of civillians in the way.

For those that don't know, Abu Sayyef are real bastards on a scale Al Qaeda never got around to being (no disrespect intended). They've been linked to the Bali bombings, kidnapping, raping and torturing women and children, and several attacks against civillians in the Philippines, including public bombings. Their main beef seems to be that the Philippine government isn't Islamic and they don't like it.

As is usually the case in politics, the government's hands aren't clean, but that doesn't excuse these guys at all. The Arroyo (and her predecessors') government hasn't proven very effective in getting rid of them, so if W's going to be throwing his military around at the Islamic world, he may as well go after the real bastards. Well, at least the ones outside of Saudi Arabia that he can actually get at.

I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as yourself finds the upcoming war in Iraq as worthless.

Not that I disagree with you about your statement but we should be doing both...

Over a year ago I said that Iraq, North Korea, The Phillipines, Iran and possibly China would fall directly under the US's war-machine for better or worse (of which I cannot indicate). Hasn't happend with Iran yet and China's foot-dragging (understandably so) with N. Korea as well as thier opposition to war with Iraq (along with Russia, Germany and France) might irk against US Policy so.. well see about them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JMET
I find it hard to believe that someone who seems as intelligent as yourself finds the upcoming war in Iraq as worthless.

---

That's a different thread. My views on the subject can be found here:

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...highlight=iraq

All I can add to that is that serious doubts have been raised as to the actual effectiveness of weapons of "mass destruction" recently, which makes the whole enterprise even more dubious.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tracer
Over a year ago I said that Iraq, North Korea, The Phillipines, Iran and possibly China would fall directly under the US's war-machine for better or worse (of which I cannot indicate). Hasn't happend with Iran yet and China's foot-dragging (understandably so) with N. Korea as well as thier opposition to war with Iraq (along with Russia, Germany and France) might irk against US Policy so.. well see about them.

---

I don't know about that. Iran's inclusion in the "Axis of Evil" has always seemed ridiculous to me, considering they're a peaceful nation which has been seeking rapprochement with the west almost since Khomeni's death, but especially over the last 5 years. Yes, they are quite possibly involved in funding terrorists or terrorist-related groups at some level, but to nowhere near the same degree as the Saudis or Syrians.

I'm not certain the US would have anything to gain by going up against the Chinese. For one thing, I'm not certain the US could actually take them. For another, the Bushes have always had a tacit understanding with Beijing, going back to Bush sending high ranking members of his government to quietly smooth things over during the Tienanmen crisis. Short of an invasion of South Korea or Taiwan, increasing tensions with China wouldn't be worth the effort, especially with a regime change (such as they are in China) about to take place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tracer
Over a year ago I said that Iraq, North Korea, The Phillipines, Iran and possibly China would fall directly under the US's war-machine for better or worse (of which I cannot indicate). Hasn't happend with Iran yet and China's foot-dragging (understandably so) with N. Korea as well as thier opposition to war with Iraq (along with Russia, Germany and France) might irk against US Policy so.. well see about them.

---

China has an advanced nuclear progam and one-fifth of the world's population. They're untouchable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
I'm not certain the US would have anything to gain by going up against the Chinese. For one thing, I'm not certain the US could actually take them. For another, the Bushes have always had a tacit understanding with Beijing, going back to Bush sending high ranking members of his government to quietly smooth things over during the Tienanmen crisis. Short of an invasion of South Korea or Taiwan, increasing tensions with China wouldn't be worth the effort, especially with a regime change (such as they are in China) about to take place.

---

China will use an Iraqi invasion as an excuse to invade Taiwan, and when that happens, we're going to sternly waggle our finger at them.

The USA wont touch Iran because they are not a threat, the young people there disagree with the "communist" ways and will probally overthrow the government within the next 5-10 years...

China is too much for anyone to take on head to head on their own land, besides China is just flexing their muscles in hopes of getting paid through loosening of trade restrictions and the like.

They are the next HUGE super Power in the world and they know it, they wont break trade ties in some vain attempt to take over the world.

China also wants N. Korea handled because they view them as a threat with their nukes..



And North Korea will be dealt with one way or the other, the real cause here is Kim's abuse of his people.

The prison camps alone are nothing more then modern day Nazi Germany concentration camps.

Read this full arcticle for some insight into this, it will truly disgust you as it did me.

This should be covered in the press, when people are dying in the ways that his people are it should be reported.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp...12130475&cp1=1

I can sleep better tonight knowing that Canadians have an opinion on geopolitics. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
I can sleep better tonight knowing that Canadians have an opinion on geopolitics. :rolleyes:

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
China has an advanced nuclear progam and one-fifth of the world's population. They're untouchable.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

China will use an Iraqi invasion as an excuse to invade Taiwan, and when that happens, we're going to sternly waggle our finger at them.

---

The Chinese don't really seem to think that way. Because they don't ever have to worry about the ruling party being voted out of power, they tend to make 40-50 year plans for these things. It isn't worth their while to rush into World War III when the Nationalist sentiment may well erode over time in Taiwan (almost the entire population is ethnically Han Chinese), and they seek unification.

Aside from that, the Chinese don't actually possess the naval capability to cross the straight and occupy Taiwan right now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JMET
The USA wont touch Iran because they are not a threat, the young people there disagree with the "communist" ways and will probally overthrow the government within the next 5-10 years...

---

Iran doesn't have a communist government. Their Islamic based government is democratically elected (from an approved selection of Mullahs), and Iran is actually one of the most tolerant nations in the middle east.

Quote:

---

China is too much for anyone to take on head to head on their own land, besides China is just flexing their muscles in hopes of getting paid through loosening of trade restrictions and the like.

They are the next HUGE super Power in the world and they know it, they wont break trade ties in some vain attempt to take over the world.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

China also wants N. Korea handled because they view them as a threat with their nukes.

---

North Korea has essentially been a Chinese vassal state since Kim Il Sung took over. The Chinese aren't threatened by them in the least - the North Koreans may one day have a single nuke, while the Chinese have hundreds as we speak. North Korea is only able to exist as an independant entity because China likes having sattelite buffer states under their influence (Tibet, Mongolia) between them and their enemies. The Bush government has actually asked for Chinese intervention with Kim Il Jong's regime, and they have politely declined.

Quote:

---

And North Korea will be dealt with one way or the other, the real cause here is Kim's abuse of his people.

---

Unfortunately, that's been going on there for the last 50 years and nobody's done anything but wag their finger at them. North Korea is impossible to deal with while they're essentially under Chinese protection. They'll be bought off with a few concessions and go back to being the hermit kingdom again for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Yoshi
I can sleep better tonight knowing that Canadians have an opinion on geopolitics.

---

While I sleep worse knowing that people with no respect for anyone outside their own borders get to vote in the country with the world's most powerful military. Life's a shame that way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Iran doesn't have a communist government. Their Islamic based government is democratically elected (from an approved selection of Mullahs), and Iran is actually one of the most tolerant nations in the middle east.






North Korea has essentially been a Chinese vassal state since Kim Il Sung took over. The Chinese aren't threatened by them in the least - the North Koreans may one day have a single nuke, while the Chinese have hundreds as we speak. North Korea is only able to exist as an independant entity because China likes having sattelite buffer states under their influence (Tibet, Mongolia) between them and their enemies. The Bush government has actually asked for Chinese intervention with Kim Il Jong's regime, and they have politely declined.

---

If youll look again, I stated their "communist ways", everyone knows they are not communist however having elections does not a democratic government make.



And perhaps I wasnt clear enough on the China/ N. Korea thing...

China is annoyed with Kim, they want him removed as he is nothing more then a thorn in their side.

They have stated as much, if I can find the artcile I will post it...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JMET
If youll look again, I stated their "communist ways", everyone knows they are not communist however having elections does not a democratic government make.

---

Uh...I think you should look up the definition of communist. Iran has a free market economy, no communist party, they do not believe in proletarian revolution, they do not believe in the abolition of religion, or recognize the works of Marx in any way.

In other words, they have absolutely nothing to do with communism or "communist ways".

And yes, having elections does a democratic government make, even if it is a limited democracy under theocratic rule.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Uh...I think you should look up the definition of communist. Iran has a free market economy, no communist party, they do not believe in proletarian revolution, they do not believe in the abolition of religion, or recognize the works of Marx in any way.

In other words, they have absolutely nothing to do with communism or "communist ways".

And yes, having elections does a democratic government make, even if it is a limited democracy under theocratic rule.

---

Perhaps you shouldnt look at your dictionary definition and look at the treatment and restrictions on the people..

The plain and simple fact is that the young Iranian people are not happy with the old fashioned b.s government and will soon topple it...

You have good schooling.. :rolleyes:

But alas your a Canadian, who gives a shit what you people have to say? :p


This is a mute arguement anyways as Iran is a non issue, if you think Sadaam can be reasoned with or the fact that 8 years of not following U.N sanctions isnt reason enough to get him out then your hopeless...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JMET
Perhaps you shouldnt look at your dictionary definition and look at the treatment and restrictions on the people.

---

The plain and simple fact is that the young Iranian people are not happy with the old fashioned b.s government and will soon topple it...[/quote]

Their society has been becoming more and more moderate over the last decade. Yes, they have political and ideological prisoners, but it's not much more restrictive than any other country in the area. Their "old fashioned b.s. government" has been modernizing the country's infrastructure at a rate the US-backed Shah never did. There is no organized military resistance to the government. What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

---

You have good schooling.. :rolleyes:

But alas your a Canadian, who gives a shit what you people have to say? :p

---

You don't even know what a communist is. I wouldn't start putting anybody down if I were you.

Quote:

---

This is a mute arguement anyways as Iran is a non issue, if you think Sadaam can be reasoned with or the fact that 8 years of not following U.N sanctions isnt reason enough to get him out then your hopeless...

---

• Mute: one who cannot speak. I think you mean "moot".
  
• I don't see what Iran has to do with Saddam Hussein.
  
• Hussein's been paying a game of brinksmanship over the last decade, but hasn't actually been involved in any sort of military action, and is in no position to do so. If you think the fact that he's been giving the US the finger is a good enough reason to start bombing people, then you're hopeless.

I have been schooled, thanks for the speaking dictionary lessons.

Now back to hugging your trees....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1622312.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...113894426.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...iran_2-17.html

http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/ne.../28/17617.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JMET
I have been schooled, thanks for the speaking dictionary lessons.

Now back to hugging your trees....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1622312.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...113894426.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...iran_2-17.html

http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/ne.../28/17617.html

---

So, what we have here is :

a) Students demonstrating against the government - shocking! That only happens in countries where the government is about to fall!

b) Students demonstrating against the government in an islamic republic - this simply doesn happen draconian regimes like you seem to think Iran is. Was the police response harsh? Yes, and would be considered unnaceptable in the west. In the other 3/4s of the world, it's unfortunately standard practice.

c) A remarkably poorly researched set of articles. The disaffection among Iranian youth has far more to do with a lack of jobs caused by a population explosion resulting from Khomeni's banning of birth control in the 80s than it does wanting to get rid of an Islamic government.

d) Freaking soccer riots. I think you should do a bit more research into exactly what it takes to overthrow a government with full military backing.


The Iranian government does not adhere to the same human rights standards as we do in the west - they're governed by the Sharia, not Voltaireian humanistic ideals. But that doesn't mean that they aren't changing. The Ayatollahs seized power as a reaction to a corrupt regime which was seen as non-Islamic. Their puritan values were not an accurate reflection of the populace's mood as much as they were a backlash against what was seen as an erosion of their culture.

As education and wealth have increased over the last 20 years, there has been a major relaxing of laws - much of the information one of those articles was out of date, specifically concerning the penalties for women not strictly observing the dress code.

The anger over the blocking of reforms by the old guard is legitimate, but said roadblocks won't last forever. Aside from the high ranking Shi'a, they are all subject to re-election, and as such won't be able to survive sustained mass-criticism in the long run.

And that is why they are a democracy.