US plane hit by fire in Philippines

Abu Sayyaf is gonna be brought to their knees after we get the AC-130s, BLU-Daisycutters and cluster bombs bearing down on their asses. This will take just a few short months to accomplish, after we finish pinpointing their every encampment and hideout with reconaissance technology...

Child's play.

Oh, and the Philipino minority can whine in the streets-- it's a welcome distraction for them from protesting their corrupt government that can barely keep the nation running without constant appeal for US aid, all the while pillaging the gov't coffers to enrich themselves.

thanks, i not only saw this same article with your immediate responce on the main IMC page, but on this one as well. 2x the military gayness!

I've noticed of late an influx of frothing-at-the-mouth reactionaries on SFIndymedia. Ken and Porky are two fine specimens of this foul breed: Vile, ignorant little bastards.

All I'll say is the US invaded the Phillipines in 1898 and proceeded to kill up to a million people. But it got it's ass repelled by the Muslims. Now the US is back and they're not going to be getting alot of love. Ken's so-called Daisycutters won't prove pivotal, is my guess.

Nessie-- didn't you say that about Afghanistan?

Aaron, you might be surprised to know that a LOT has happened since 1898. Mainly World War 2, where we saved the Philippines from total Japanese enslavery. They love the USA over there-- it's practically a freakin' US territory. Something like 50% of Philipinos send their kids to American schools.

Those protests you see are government sponsored-- they'd rather direct citizen anger away from their corrupt nation and toward the US military. Go over there and check it out.

Just wait and see what happens in the jungles there, should we decide to focus about .01% of our military attention to the cause of destroying the Muslim Extremist Terrorists.

Gee, Ken-baby, most of the Filipinos where I live seem to want to solve their countries problems on their own. Why is that some people think America has the right to intervene in other nations affairs whenever it wants? Last I recall, there was something called the UN Charter which prohibited that sort of thing. Oh yeah, but Amerikkka doesn't have to play by the rules, now, does it, because we're so just and right? Bullshit!

It is small-minded little trolls like you who are the first ones taken hostage in foreigh countries, mainly because of your cultural insensitivity. (Remember wanted happened to CIA fool 'Johnny' Spann?)Wouldn't want that to happen to you, though, Ken; you seem to be such a NICE guy.

One more thing: rot in hell you Fascist bastard!

the Philippine government and military INVITED the US troops into their country with WIDE OPEN ARMS to stamp out a problem that's been plaquing them for decades.

So, put away your UN charter for another time you simple minded dweeb.

Nothing like having a puppet government in place to rubber stamp the invasion, huh? Just like in the US, the Philippine government DOES NOT represent the people: they represent the corporations.

Soon lackeys like you will find out what is going in the REAL world; you could be in for a rude awakening. Remember Argentina? That's just the beginning! People will no longer tolerate corruption in public office. All your butt-kissing will be to no avail!

On the one hand Ken points to the Phillipine states' support of the US invasion. In invoking this fact kenny acts as if he has performed a rhetorical slam-dunk against those who oppose a US invasion.

On the other hand Ken emphasizes that the Phillipines state is hopelessly corrupt. In invoking this fact kenny acts as if he has perfomed a rhetorical slam-dunk against those who oppose a US invasion.

Meanwhile, our erstwhile reactionary makes no mention of the US governments support for the massively corrupt Marcos dictatorship that smashed all opponents to US interests for decades.

Nice try Kenny.

why yes! After we turned off the cash spigot this past autumn...they went bankrupt. O'Neill wisely stopped sending 20 billion dollar checks down there for them to squander!

US was funding argentina for too long, thank god that's over and the people are whipping some of their politicians into shape..

Unlike the Philippines...but, hey-- I've been to the Philippines at least 10 times in the past 3-4 years on business for 3-4 week stretches....and let me tell you, the US is the most favored country by Philippinos..

They know where their dough comes from!

Not to mention, they know what would have happened if the US hadn't showed up in the Pacific in WWII-- they had a nice taste of Japanese occupation...and believe me, America is a primier ally of the philippino people and government.

Yeah, the government is corrupt as hell-- but that doesn't change the fact that we were invited with open arms by the gov't, military, and the VAST MAJORITY of Philippinos according to ALL polls in country.

Go yell and scream all you want outside the San Fran consulate...while you're at it, you can try and impeach Bush too, because he has such "low" support in this country...both will go a long way!

The ongoing rebellion in Argentina isn't just directed against the government but also against the IMF policies of austerity, privatizations, and declining wages which it administers. In a real sense, it is an anti-capitalist uprising, with a pronounced anti-US aspect. After all, it is the US -- the Treasury Dept. to be specific -- that essentially controls the IMF and sees to it that it imposes policies beneficial to metropolitan capital.

Ken may like it that O'Niell hasn't bailed out Argentina in the same way that Clinton bailed out Mexico. But here we see how the right-wing in its provincialism is often less able than centrist pro-capitalists -- like Clinton -- to grasp and implement far-sighted policies to the benefit of capitalism. We'll see how the Argentine situation unfolds, but "contagion" and increased, regional instability are a distinct possibilty.

Ken has been to the Phillipines a bunch of times on business and attests to how much the people there love America and all things American. How stupid and arrogant! Ken has the circumbscribed encounters of the businessman and thinks he has a grasp on the views of the Phillipine nation. It goes without saying that most of the business types you rub shoulders with are going to be pro-US -- big surprise. But what I bet causes you to think that Phillipinos really love the US is that fact that those who serve you -- waiters, taxi-car drivers, hotel clerks etc -- seem to feel the same way. But consider this Ken: they make their money being ubsequious to people like you. When they smile your way, they don't necessarily mean it; when they say something laudatory about the country from which you come, they may be hoping you'll give them a big tip. When you part company they may curse you and speak contemptuously of you.

As to polls of the Phillipino people indicating big support for an invasion, I'll say this: 1) Polls mislead by ask "leading" questions, such as "Do you want the US to help free us from terrorism?"; 2) Polls disproportionately measure the opinions of those with money -- those who don't have a phone or live in a lean-too are less likely to be asked how they feel; 3) Whatever support now exists will quickly evaporate if and when the US starts dropping "Daisy-cutters" and cluster bombs, a course of action which you evidently support.

You know what? I don't really care what someone in the Phillipines thinks about American foreign policy!

What about what I said was "crap" exactly?

Clinton bailed out Mexico because they REFORMED. After years of the US asking, Argentina never reformed, and every time we sent 20 Billion dollars down there they came back 3 months later and needed even MORE money-- but still would not reform their policies.

So, do you believe there is a point at which the AMERICAN TAXPAYER should stop spending money on a government that refuses to reform, but continues to require large amounts of cash?? I think so.

Regarding the Philippines... I don't think I ever specified what "business" I do there, causing you to be confused about the level and type of interaction I have with locals, and assuming me to be some jaded hotel-taxi bound businessman who knows nothing about anything.. Well, that is far from the case, as I am in the Philippines helping them build water treatment plants--- which means I am in both urban and VERY VERY RURAL places, talking to construction workers, blue-collar guys, and people from all walks of life. Where I go, there are typically NO HOTELS, and I stay with locals, or in a rented house/apartment. I eat in people's homes, at roadside stands (where the guy typically lives in a lean-to) and at modest local restaurants.

I meet all kinds of people-- and no, they aren't looking for a "tip", you arrogant SOB. They are good people with opinions-- and they largely disagree with what beliefs and manners you impose or imagine upon them!! Frankly, they can't wait for the daisycutters to fly on Abu Sayaff. I guess that's why those "phony polls" you talk about show an over 80% support for US military assistance....

Ken,

do you fancy a pretzel??


love
Erick

Ken,
The Argentine descent has been a slow-motion collapse, brought about by policies that the US financial elite cheered on, benefited from, and helped to engineer. Four years ago if you paid attention to the Wall Street Journal you would have read how Argentina (like Enron!) was a shining example of free markets. The fact that the privatization campaigns were riddled with corruption and caused goods, such as water, to escalate in price dramatically was overlooked because motherfuckers were making money and a speculative boom was in full force. Now that the shiny example has proven itself not-so-shiny, all the apologists argue that "the free market wasn't implemented correctly" or that "the Argentines are corrupt" and that the collapse isn't due to capitalism but, instead, to some "bad apples" (again, just like Enron).

The intensified process of capitalist globalization has, in less than a decade, triggered so many financial crisis' (think Russia, Mexico, Thailand, Brazil, and now, Argentina) that global financial markets and planners have learned a thing or two about containing their effects. This in part explains why the US has taken the stance it has vis a vis Argentina -- simply put, it thinks it can. I personally don't care if the US forks over money. It already appears that the IMF will be making new loans, no doubt on conditions that will adversely effect the interests of poor and working class Argentines. As to Mexico, the mid-90s Clinton bail-out worked quite well -- for capital. The crisis didn't spread and multinational corporations and banks continue pulling out huge profits and the living conditions of the vast majority have worsened dramatically.

The Phillipines has yet to have a full-blown crisis, but the winds of global capitalism have hardly spared it either. Debt, as you must know, is a weapon used by metropolitan capital against any and all aspirations on the part of people in the "3rd World" for greater control, and a more even distribution, of wealth. Debt is used as a wedge to force privatization, austerity, and liberalization of capital markets -- certainly you are seeing this in the Phillipines. In the Phillipines, it was Marcos -- that venal little tool of the US -- that incurred huge debt and now the poor and working class is expected to pay it back. Int'l financiers wanted to loan, Marcos wanted to borrow, and now the debt is a weapon against those you claim are so enamored with the US.

I don't doubt that many people in the Phillipines wish to see the Abu Sayef criminal gang eradicated. I'm sure I would if I lived there. I can even believe that many nod in approval at the idea of the US taking care of business if the question is simply posed as the "terrorists" getting their asses kicked. But, see, we can pretend that the US is a benevolent force that wants good in the world and acts with pure intentions. But to do so is a delusion. Pretend the situation was different, and it was the Chinese state that wanted to send "advisers" into Phillipines to route the Abu Sayef. How would you respond to that? I mean, the Abu Sayef are terrible! I bet, however, that you wouldn't be for it nor would I. For the same reason, I'm opposed to the US building up militarily in the Phillipines. (And before you mount a counter-argument that the US is in fact a force of good think about: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatamala, Chile, the Shah of Iran, Vietnam, Somalia, UNITA in Angola, support for apartheid South Africa, Israel, support for Hussein throughout the 80s, close to a million dead through sanctions and bombs in Iraq in the past decade....)

You say that some Daisycutters will do the trick. That is at once despicable and naive. If the US does in fact become truly engaged (I'm not saying that it necessarily will do so) it will be guerilla war. If you think that the allegedly high support for the US will last after a few inevitable massacres and "accidental" bombings of villages, you are wrong as can be.

The following link is pertinent to this discussion, after all the US has just killed thousands of Afghan civilians, massively exacerbated hunger and the refugee crisis, installed a bunch of discredited war-lords into power and didn't catch the high ups in al-Quada (and you're salivating for more of the same!)

http://cursor.org./stories/ontarget.htm

try this instead:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm

try this instead:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm