New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 191
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    July 26 is GMA's SONA.

    Her speech writer, should visit this forum.... kakilala mo nyo ba?

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    July 26 is GMA's SONA.

    On that day, one of the three scenarios is going to happen -- 1) Angelo will arrive in a box (2) Angelo will be back in one piece (3) Fate still unknown

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002

    will she make another 180-degree turn-around
    before her SONA..

    kaya seguro wala pang pull-out, at ayaw ding gumalaw ng mga Iraqi (alam na yata ang track record nya)

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Originally posted by mazdamazda

    see the bigger picture. we are already opening up a pandora's box with this.

    should we withdraw our forces from iraq - this will be a BIG victory for the militants. then what happens? they continue to kidnap foreigners and kill them like pigs because they know that they can get away with it. if every country withdraws from iraq - what will happen then? a civil war will ensue among the warlords & different groups to gain control of the country - possibly killing tens of thousands.

    btw, what is so special with this one person? as you said, "Mr. Angelo dela Cruz is a human being whose life is not anything for anyone of us to sacrifice or bargain with." but what about our soldiers and policemen here in the Philippines - aren't we already sacrificing them in one way or the other so that we can maintain peace and order? what about Mr. dela Cruz's decision to go to Iraq - knowing well that he will be in harm's way. what about the foreigners & other Filipinos that was kidnapped in Mindanao (wherein we didn't negotiate with the terrorirsts) and was killed in the process? so all those sacrifices have been thrown out now of the window because of this person? my point here is that the issue here it isn't just about Mr. dela Cruz, it is about the welfare of the Filipinos in general.

    with this, Filipinos are now more vurnerable as terrorists know that we will succumb to their will.

    we are against the government's decision not just to save face - but for the future welfare of our people.
    Thank you for replying this, you saved me some time to write this myself.

    yebo, no one said nor implied that you are stupid. You said it yourself, that this is a subjective topic whereas everyone's opinion will be different.

    Mr Angelo de la Cruz was kidnapped not because he was a filipino, but because the philippine government has sided with the united states in a war that was started by a lie.
    I bet you think GWB's presidency was also a lie. :hihihi: anyway, I dont want to turn this into another opinionated debate.

    France back-up even before it started or got worst. The Philippine Gov't is already there and because one life is at danger. For that reason, the decision by the Phil. Gov't is a bigger issue around the world or to other 41 countries. How about the rest of the countries who's troops are there? Why didnt S. Korea backed-up, instead they are sending another 1,600 troops.

    I would have never mind if the Phil. Gov't backed-up as early as France did. Pero to think that they backed-up for the demands of the terrorists is just a shame. Maybe I or the rest of the world shouldnt be surprised. Afterall, the Phil. Gov't is known to negotiate and give-in to the demands of the kidnappers in the Philippines. Mahilig kse ang Pinas sa EASY-FIX kaya bayad na lang ng bayad sa demands ng terrorists.

    And about gratitute, France can stand on their own feet so they can do what they want. Can the Philippine country stay afloat without any help?

    Pinabayaan na lang ang Philippine Gov't after WWII? Bakit, dahil ba hindi binigyan ng citizenship ang mga sundalo noon? Eh akala ko ba maka-Pilipino sila? Eh bakit ngayon hihingi sila ng US Citizenship? Wasnt it FILIPINO citizenship ang hinaing noong unang panahon against any conquistadores? Napaka ironic noh?

    Angelo is not ‘just one individual,’ he’s all of us
    Saang teleserye ito nakuha?

    Angelo's life is not the only one at stake in Iraq. And yet, the rest of the coalition didnt backed down.

  5. Join Date
    Jun 2004
    My sympathy is with Angelo Dela Cruz and his family. But his case is not an ordinary case of an OFW. Too much media hype had been thrown to his story. There are hundreds of OFW who had been beheaded by the barbaric cultures of middles east countries. There had been DHs in HK that went home in the casket. If the argument is to save his life then the media must apply the same importance to other OFW that are waiting to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

  6. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Originally posted by doublea
    My sympathy is with Angelo Dela Cruz and his family. But his case is not an ordinary case of an OFW. Too much media hype had been thrown to his story. There are hundreds of OFW who had been beheaded by the barbaric cultures of middles east countries. There had been DHs in HK that went home in the casket. If the argument is to save his life then the media must apply the same importance to other OFW that are waiting to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.
    Now why I didnt thought of this. I have to totally agree, again.

  7. Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Mga katoto kong tsikoteers di po tayo nag aaway were just exchanging some ideas and points of view sa nangyayari sa ating bansa at lalong lalo na sa mga desisyon making ng Phil. Goverment under GMA.Isa lang po ang ang masasabi ko and i hope alam ito ng Phil. Goverment at di nila ito makakalimutan.Nang ang isang pinoy ay pumasok sa pagiging sundalo ng bansang pilipinas sila ay sumumpa na maglilingkod at handang mamatay alang alang sa ating bayan.Eto po ang aking tanong bakit ang isang sundalo na nakikipaglaban at nabalitang pwedeng mamatay bakit parang hindi ito matanggap ng ating mga kababayan? sa pag pull out ba ng tropang sundalong pinoy sa iraq ay maiiligtas ba nila ang ating kababayang si Angelo? Maaring may sasagot ng oo at hindi dahil hindi natin talaga alam ang binabalak ng mga hostage taker na ito.At dahil dito nalulubog sa kahihiyan ang ating bansa, hindi lang sa kahihiyan pati narin sa utang........................

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    France has its own interests to protect. During Iran-Iraq war, sila ang provider ng military hardware (exocet missiles) sa Iraq.

    Falklands war, exocet missiles din ang ginamit ng mga argentines to down a Brittish warship.

    Kaya no way na magkakasundo yang England/US and France...

  9. Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Originally posted by yebo
    no, i do not think hundreds of filipinos will be hostaged in the future just because the philippines will pull out of iraq. in fact, there will be no more hostaging of filipinos in iraq. there would be no more reason to do so. when the philippines extricates itself from that immoral war, when we learn to respect the sovereignty and freedom of other countries, when we see the people of the middle east as peoples whose desires for freedom are as strong as ours, then so shall they see that we are their friends. peace on earth, my friend, will only happen when each and everyone of us learn to respect each other's freedoms.
    how can you talk of freedom here? have you forgotten so soon that no more than a year ago the iraqi people had no freedom at all? didn't the coalition take out a despotic government in order to give back the freedom to the people? do you honestly believe that america will keep its hold in iraq for long (which they can't anyway)? of course they want a government friendly to their country, but then again what country doesn't?

    in my opinion, an occupied people are entitled to whatever means they have to regain their freedom. terrorist is a tag you can affix to them at your convenience, but they call themselves freedom fighters.
    hey, i can kill and kidnap a lot of people innocent and otherwise and still call myself a patriot/freedom fighter; but that doesn't mean that i am who i profess to be.

    i do not see them any different from the katipuneros and the huks who fought our country's colonisers in the past.
    is america out to colonize iraq? are they even thinking of occupying the country for long? are they thinking of installing their own government with american citizens ruling the country? that is what our katipuneros fought against and that is not the case here.

    one would think that america wants to install their own puppet government in iraq. who knows maybe they are, but with the temperament of the iraqis i dont think that plan would succeed.

    if i were an iraqi, or to put it in clearer terms, if the philippines were iraq, i guarantee you sir that you will also call me a terrorist because i will bomb, snipe, kidnap, hostage, and do whatever i can to free my country. but only if you are my country's invader, or are with them.
    now put yourself in the shoes if the iraqis... you have a very cruel dictator holding your country by throat and you cant do anything about it. then an outside force pulls down that dictator and tries to bring some order to your country. wouldn't you be gratefull somebody came in and gave a helping hand? this so called freedom fighters as you call them are only a minority who can't wait and only want power for themselves. the rest are hoping for the best and waiting for what the coalition will do.

    as you said, you have a different perspective on the issues. but in the stated points, i believe you have your perspective wrong. one less despot is better for the world in my book.
    Last edited by roninblade; July 16th, 2004 at 01:19 PM.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    while i disagree with capitulating to terrorists' demands, i do see yebo's points which he has articulated very clearly. i think what he is trying to say is that pulling out immediately is simply the principled thing to do, since we should never have been in iraq in the first place, and now that a filipino life is needlessly at stake, that is all the more reason for our country to see the folly of being there. we may or may not agree with this argument, but i think it is a good point.


    nah, wala yang "stupid" na yan kay yebo, ganyan lang talaga siya magsalita hehehehe


    i respectfully disagree with your point! how can we say that Bush was justified in invading Iraq because Saddam was a tyrant? the implication is that the USA can invade any country it wishes simply because it doesn't like the ruler! what folly! it's the whole Benevolent Assimilation and Manifest Destiny bullcrap again. the notion that the USA is the good cop of the world (mocking the United Nations even!) must be examined thoroughly! and as yebo has said, because i make statements that are not pro-US does not make me anti-US. it's simply not "either you're with us or you're against us" -- that statement is no different from, "either you're brainwashed or you're enlightened". why are white-skins superior over dark-skins or yellow-skins? at the core, that is the question.

    Marcos was a tyrant as well, so would you agree that the US would have been right to occupy our land a second time because Marcos was a dipshit?

    China is ruled by communists... i suppose the US ***should*** send a nuke or two unto Beijing.

    So is North Korea. etc... etc...

    why in the world should the Iraqis be grateful for Bush? because Bush has invaded their country? that is the height of irony. by the same logic, if America would invade us right now, we should be grateful to America because our country is hopeless with a Filipino ruler anyway. what makes non-Americans so helpless that they need to rely on the great American crutch to stand up? are they not capable of the things that Americans are capable of?

    Ah, but the proponents of the war will argue: to have done nothing would be immoral... just as the Allies did nothing after World War I while Germany rebuilt its war machine. but World War 1 and 2 were very different from Iraq circa 2003. what threat did Saddam and Iraq pose to the US other than Bush's delusions?

    and if the argument that America waged a benevolent war is acceptable, then why does America speak of handing out contracts like christmas gifts? who gave them that right? if America was truly benevolent in its cause, then Iraq's economic assets should be the sole property of the Iraqis, yes?

    no, that is simply not the real rationale of Bush's war. that angle of ejecting a despot was just tacked on by Bush after his primary rationale -- officially, neutralizing WMDs -- was getting torn to shreds!

    finally, how can you speak of "putting yourself in the shoes of the Iraqis?" how do you know the true sentiment of the Iraqi people? what we know of Iraq we mostly got from American media... and that is worth a very long thought. American media serves America first and the Iraqis last.

    that is why America should never have gone to Iraq. that is why the Philippines should never have gone to Iraq.

    (dissenting in the spirit of a healthy discussion, alright hehehe, baka sabihin na naman na nag-iinit tayo dito )

Angelo dela Cruz (Merged threads)