 |
| |
|
|
Space05us
|
|
quote:
BAGHDAD - The Philippines said it would withdraw its peacekeeping force from Iraq "as soon as possible," in accordance with the demands of the extremist kidnappers of a national citizen, Angelo dela Cruz.
Philippine Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Rafael Seguis read the statement for broadcast on Al-Jazeera, the Arab-language satellite television station, late Monday evening.
Relatives and neighbors continue their prayer vigil outside the house of Filipino hostage Angelo dela Cruz
(AP PHOTO)
It was unclear, however, whether the troops would leave any earlier than than the already scheduled pullout date of August 20.
Seguis also appealed to the abductors' humanity.
"I appeal to you and to your kind hearts as Muslims to please release Angelo dela Cruz so that he can return to his family and children," he said.
After originally vowing to "not bow to terrorist blackmail," the Philippine government made its apparent about-face as the Tuesday deadline set by the abductors loomed.
The kidnappers – a group calling itself Khaled Bin Al-Walid Squadrons, part of the Islamic Army of Iraq – on Sunday said they would kill dela Cruz if the Philippines did not pull its force out of Iraq by July 20.
The Philippines has 51 soldiers, police officers and health workers on a humanitarian mission in Iraq.
Manila originally said it would not extend the mandate of its force past August 20, after dela Cruz appeared last Wednesday in a televised video begging his government to withdraw its soldiers.
The country has stopped the deployment of its nationals in any capacity in Iraq. Some 4,100 Filipinos are believed to be working in U.S. military bases in Iraq as cooks and maintenance technicians.
Dela Cruz, a 46 year-old truck driver, was abducted some time around July 7 |
 at least paste the article in your first post, some of us are lazy you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
This is what happens when you pay for your coalition members participation instead of using loyal old allies. You get what you pay for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
I didn't see anything about this in the Manila Times...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
I don't buy this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
Imran, "benevolent assimilation" is highly mythologized in many respects. The Philippine colony wasn't treated as an equal, there was a tremendous amount of racism, and the "revolt" was a full-scale revolution. At least 30,000 Filipino's died in it, in addition to over 4000 Americans. And it was one that enjoyed popular support until the largescale losses and political fragmentation of the Filipinos led to capitulation with a vastly better-armed American occupying force.
I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...632107?v=glance
And
http://www.wooster.edu/history/jgates/book-ch3.html
The best thing that ever happened for Filippino-American relations was WW2, because the brutality of the IJA made them long for the good old days of merely being forcibly converted to Christianity rather than mass murdered on a nightmarish scale. The American occupation wasn't at all brutal or particularly repressive, but it wasn't skittles and beer.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 13-07-2004 at 08:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:33
|
|
Actually I take what I said back.
Your characterization of the American occupation of the Phillipines is UTTER CRAP.
Not only that it is refuted by the article you posted!
The article shows a balanced look at the war and praises the US Army and it's occupation leadership for winning over the population by improving their lives and giving them security.
It shows that many of the texts written showing the Army as scorched earth, terror occupiers was written by those who were anti-imperialists.
quote:
Considerable evidence exists, however, to support the argument that atrocious acts of war, for all their widespread publicity, were neither the major nor the most important feature of the army's approach to pacification, as the leaders of the Philippine revolution recognized at the time. They feared what they called the army's "policy of attraction," the term used to describe such army activities as the establishment of schools, municipal governments, and public works projects. The leaders of the revolution feared that the Americans would succeed in winning Filipino acceptance of American rule through such an enlightened policy, and many guerrilla leaders ordered acts of terrorism against their own people in an attempt to counter it. Terror, however, did not prevent all Filipinos from collaborating with the Americans as the army created a positive image of the benefits of colonial rule by the reforms implemented in the occupied towns.
The reform orientation of the army's leaders, not brutality, was the most significant element in the American approach to pacification. Literally from the moment they occupied Manila, American officers had begun efforts to reform the city's government and improve the lives of the people in their charge, initiating their work at a time when many of them assumed that the United States would not be retaining the islands. Later, as tension between the Americans and the Filipino revolutionaries mounted, General E. S. Otis, the second commander of the expeditionary force, hoped that many of the reforms implemented by his military government would obtain Filipino acceptance of American rule and avoid war by demonstrating the sincerity of McKinley's pronouncements stressing America's benevolent intentions in the islands. After hostilities began, Otis continued in his belief that enlightened government was a more important tool of pacification than forceful military operations. Even when condemned by some of his own men for being too cautious, Otis persisted in a policy of pacification emphasizing good works instead of more draconian measures, leading one correspondent to remark that the Americans were "humane to the point of military weakness."
A number of officers shared the General's views, and as units of the army occupied territory outside of Manila, commanders organized public schools, municipal governments, public health measures, and many other projects with a reform orientation. General Arthur MacArthur, who succeeded Otis in May 1900, continued the commitment to a pacification policy relying upon the good works of the military government to bring an end to the war by convincing Filipinos that an American colonial government would have a sincere interest in their welfare and could be trusted. MacArthur consistently rejected the recommendations of those subordinates who urged him to adopt a highly repressive policy, even after he concluded that some harsher measures would be needed to break the link between the guerrillas and their noncombatant supporters. Fortunately for MacArthur, a number of officers in the field took a similar view, and during even the most frustrating period of the guerrilla war, at a time when some Americans were engaging in deplorable acts of brutality, others continued the reform-oriented work of the military government |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2004 05:33
to Krazyhorse.
|