Biazon: US carrier not for rescue, recovery operations (??!!??)

**redorange** · June 27th, 2008 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

I'm under the understanding that US Forces in Mindanao are training Philippine forces in anti-terrorist measures while other US forces undergo jungle warfare training by Philippine advisors.

I was under the impression that overall, US forces in the Philippines are in a non-combat role.

There is a mutual defense treaty in place. I imagine joint training between the two countries fall under its guidelines.

Jun you were in the military, you know as much as anyone that what is said to the public isn't always what is happening. I know people that have been there and training isn't always what they do.

**Jun aka Pekto** · June 27th, 2008 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by redorange

Jun you were in the military, you know as much as anyone that what is said to the public isn't always what is happening. I know people that have been there and training isn't always what they do.

I do. But, I haven't been that far out of it either. Shades of anything synonymous with Vietnam are still very much talked about. There's already Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt the US public will tolerate any more places to get embroiled in.

I'm skeptical of US forces taking part in any fighting in the Philippines because 1. Any news of dead/wounded/captured Americans would've spread like wildfire in the Pinoy grapevine. 2. The Abu Sayyaf would've been spreading the word to sow discord among the public both in the Philippines and in the US. They certainly would bring out the band and parade if they got hold of any American servicemen if only for propaganda purposes. US forces venturing out and engaging in firefights with terrorist elements increases the risks of capture/casualties. I'm sure no one is underestimating the Muslim elements down there. They've been fighters for centuries and aren't to be taken lightly.

I've also seen my share of diplomatic protocol. So, the nukes thing is quite a big deal. I'm sure the USN ships would comply although to what degree no one knows. I know from the past with other countries, it boiled down to technicalities which from my view were almost laughable but were within the rules from a lawyer's standpoint

**kitsons** · June 27th, 2008 07:37 AM

[SIZE=3]I guess you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned technicalities.. think it's a matter of using those hairline-thing technicalities to get media mileage enough to get a seat in 2010!!![/SIZE]:lalala:
[SIZE=3]
KSC[/SIZE]

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

I do. But, I haven't been that far out of it either. Shades of anything synonymous with Vietnam are still very much talked about. There's already Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt the US public will tolerate any more places to get embroiled in.

I'm skeptical of US forces taking part in any fighting in the Philippines because 1. Any news of dead/wounded/captured Americans would've spread like wildfire in the Pinoy grapevine. 2. The Abu Sayyaf would've been spreading the word to sow discord among the public both in the Philippines and in the US. They certainly would bring out the band and parade if they got hold of any American servicemen if only for propaganda purposes. US forces venturing out and engaging in firefights with terrorist elements increases the risks of capture/casualties. I'm sure no one is underestimating the Muslim elements down there. They've been fighters for centuries and aren't to be taken lightly.

I've also seen my share of diplomatic protocol. So, the nukes thing is quite a big deal. I'm sure the USN ships would comply although to what degree no one knows. I know from the past with other countries, it boiled down to technicalities which from my view were almost laughable but were within the rules from a lawyer's standpoint

**Pong** · June 27th, 2008 08:13 AM

Isa lang ang explanation sa inaarte ni biazon. NAGPAPAKILALA ulit para may recall ang pangalan niya sa 2010. Maybe the cigarette stains on his teeth are creeping up to his brain. Enough grandstanding politicians please!

**shadow** · June 27th, 2008 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Pong

Isa lang ang explanation sa inaarte ni biazon. NAGPAPAKILALA ulit para may recall ang pangalan niya sa 2010. Maybe the cigarette stains on his teeth are creeping up to his brain. Enough grandstanding politicians please!

Pong din yata ang nickname ni Biazon...hehehe

FYI, tapos na po ang term ni Biazon...but tama ka grandstanding lang talaga...

**coiter** · June 27th, 2008 09:40 AM

hmm ok na sana nung tumigil sya sa point ng constitution natin na bawal ang nuclear weapons. this I'd have to agree with.

pero nung nagdwell pa sya about other things like 'not suitable' or 'no capacity' to conduct S&R e medyo malabo na.

pero sana payagan nila at magcourtesy visit yung carrier group sa manila bay. wow how i'd love to see that ship and those planes.

**shadow** · June 27th, 2008 11:02 AM

kung iisipin din tama naman din siya kung totoong nasa constitution natin nga na bawal pumasok lahat ng vessel sa Phil territory kung meron nuke..

but I guess with our situation any help is better than nothing...

"beggars can't be chooser"

**rion** · June 27th, 2008 11:17 AM

is he aware na kunti lang yung rescuers natin?

it may sound pathetic for him na Aircraft Carrier from America ang magiging rescue and retrieval, but we desperately need help. and it's 100 times capable than us alone.

we are losing against time, "beggars can't be chooser and complain"

**[archie]** · June 27th, 2008 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

He was right to bring up that question about nuke weapons. Quite frankly, it was a good call on his part if nobody else had thought of it.

Now if he continues to insist the USS Reagan stay out even after that ship was shown to have no nukes, then he probably is grandstanding.

i have to agree with this... after all he said that a statement that says if the USS Reagan has no nuke capabilities then its all good.

**Altis6453** · June 27th, 2008 11:56 AM

This is how Sec. 8, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution reads:

"Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory."

Dunno about other lawyers here but it certainly a stretch to say that allowing an American aircraft carrier to come here on a mission of mercy can be interpreted as violating this provision in any way. Put it another way, allowing the entry of that ship for the single purpose of conducting rescue operations doesn't mean you're stockpiling, storing or even transporting nuclear weapons.

I have to hand it to our politicians. What we lack in lifesaving equipment and rescue capability we more than make up for in terms of chutzpah and bluster when other nations try to help. :nono: