Philippines bends over and spreads 'em wide

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Most people disagree with you. Ergo, it's still OK.

You forget I am not the one arguing about Mob rule boyo.

[Kuciwalker]

Neither am I. I'm simply accepting paiktis' argument, as it means almost every single post he's ever made is wrong.

EDIT: typo

[Bereta_Eder]

*pinches his little cheeks*


it's paiktIS BTW

[GePap]

How are they wrong? What you would be showing is an inherent hypocrasy between accepting an act based on the national plurality of opinions when it comes to pulling out of Iraq vs an act based on the national plurality when it comes to invading Iraq.

But in no way do you prove his statements "wrong"

[Kuciwalker]

Internally inconsistent, then

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh lord. So which powers of Europe recognized the French Revolution to lend it legitimacy?


/QUOTE]

Imran is really arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Whether you call a conflict a war or revolution frequently comes down to who won, who wrote the history or simply established usage.


I've never described the native forces fighting the Americans in the Philippines as revolutionaries, because after the overthrow of the Spanish they could hardly be revolting against the 'liberating' Americans could they?

In point of fact many Filipinos refer to it as a war, because that's precisely what it was, just like the Indian Wars (not 'revolts') in the United States.

In Great Britain the series of conflicts between the Scots and the King and the English Parliament and the King are known as the English Civil War (or wars, the Scottish conflict also being known as the Bishops' War separately).

Any yet a few decades along, the son of the same monarch who was executed by Parliament after those same civil wars is ousted in the 'Glorious Revolution'- which although a conflict of shorter duration, was just as much a war as any of the previous ones.

Perhaps it just might have something to do with some Americans not wanting to categorize an armed conflict with them as an occupying colonizing power as a war- part of their supposedly taking up the 'White Man's Burden' in Asia.

Mark Twain: To the Person Sitting in Darkness.

North American Review 172 (Feb 1901). In Jim Zwick, ed., Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935. (December 12, 1996).



"Our case is simple. On the 1st of May, Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet. This left the Archipelago in the hands of its proper and rightful owners, the Filipino nation. Their army numbered 30,000 men, and they were competent to whip out or starve out the little Spanish garrison; then the people could set up a government of their own devising. Our traditions required that Dewey should now set up his warning sign, and go away. But the Master of the Game happened to think of another plan—the European plan. He acted upon it. This was, to send out an army—ostensibly to help the native patriots put the finishing touch upon their long and plucky struggle for independence, but really to take their land away from them and keep it. That is, in the interest of Progress and Civilization. The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured—a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help—by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause—just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence—and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised—that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public—in private it was European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly—so affectionate, even—with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington —Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against “the common enemy� (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniards; petted them, lied to them—officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government—fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground—a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. It is Mr. Chamberlain’s case over again—at least in its motive and intention; and we played the game as adroitly as he played it himself. "

It's all about the money, honey....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So which powers of Europe recognized the French Revolution to lend it legitimacy?

After the ascention of Napoleon? Plenty of European powers recognized a new government in France. And even before that they dealt with the French government and not with royal family in exile.

You really do paint yourself into some ludicrous corners here. So the French Revolution wasn't really a revolution until Napoleon came in and overthrew the revolutionaries and established the consulate? Despite the fact that the revolution had succeeded in overthrowing the government and completely substituting its power with its own? You're being utterly ridiculous, and historians would laugh in your face if you said this to them.

The Spanish were overthrown, and their authority substituted for another.

Since they still held the capital, no, it wasn't.

You're being deliberately obtuse and you know it. The Spanish exercised NO power over the rest of the country, and what was left in Manila was an small garrison that was being starved out. Meanwhile, the Filipinos successfully controlled everything else and established their own ruling body with Aguinaldo as president. That Manila was the "capital" is irrelevant, as it didn't at the time hold any authority as the "capital." This is once again you establishing completely arbitrary rules for revolutions.

Really, calling the middle of a civil war to be a 'revolution' is just as silly as saying the American South carried out a revolution in 1860.

Did the South ever control more than a majority of the U.S. population? Was their aim to completely supplant the U.S. Federal government, or to just break away from it? These are the kind of differences that matter when it comes to such terminology.

And once again, has FARC engaged in a revolution? They control vast areas of Columbia. Columbia does not effectively hold those areas any longer. You still haven't answered that question and are refusing to do so.

I answered the question when I pointed out that what determines a "revolution" is more nuanced than a dictionary definition, in the eyes of historians. And does FARC control a majority of the population, do they enjoy support from most people of the country? Have they effectively crushed the power of the sovereign state they're fighting?

Regardless, it could very well be a revolution--they do call them revolutionaries, after all. Their aim is to supplant the current authority with another and change the status quo, and I'd say that's pretty revolutionary.

I'm sorry, but no rebellion is going to say, well, all we wanted was the countryside. We'll make a treaty giving Spain Manilla if they recognize we own the countryside.

Are you just making things up now? Who ever said the Filipinos said this or felt this? As I pointed out--several times--Aguinaldo had Manila surrounded, under seige and it was only a matter of time before he took it back. The only thing that stopped him was the sneaky deal between Spain and the U.S. The things you pull out of your ass to dance around points are amazing, considering there was no question that the Filipinos were not going to take Manila.

None of those are revolutions because all of them failed. Even under your definition none of them would qualify. And yes, I have no faith in encylopedists who tend to label France or Sweden 2004 as 'socialist' countries. It's like they've never read anything by Karl Marx (and probably haven't).

Okay, so you'd better start your campaign to historians as well. You can start with the members of the Oxford history department, who universally refer to ALL of those things as revolutions. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear your prattling on about what dictionary.com has to say, as well as your completely arbitrary notions of "recognition."

Just admit that it's not the encyclopedists you have a problem with, it's just that you won't accept anything that doesn't jive with the silly corner you've painted yourself into.

[

Ah, this your with me or against me tactic by the left (and they go off on Bush for it).

What does a debate on nomenclature have to do with politics? Blatant strawman.

If I say it is a 'revolt' or 'rebellion' then I'm trivializing it. I guess that means I consider the Southern rebellion to be just a few malcontents.

Southern rebellion? You mean the Civil War, right?

You were downplaying the fight, however, which is why this started. A struggle that takes 14 years to resolve with the deployment of 120,000 U.S. troops isn't a revolt, it's an all-out war. You can ask the Library of Congress about that.

Come on, it's time to stop the legalist for once and just admit that "revolution" isn't based on these silly, often arbitrary definitions you're positing that have stuck you into the ludicrous position of declaring the French Revolution not one until it was overthrown. You at least then won't have historians and scholars laughing you out of the building.

[Brundlefly]

Re: Philippines bends over and spreads 'em wide

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/delacruz040712

b) You don't negotiate with terrorists. If somebody takes a Canadian hostage I hope the Canadian government has the good sense to do everything to get him back safely except for acceding to the demands of his kidnapers

to the Philippines

This is what happens when you have a woman running the country (Phillipines).

[Q Classic]

This is what happens when you have a woman running the country (Phillipines).

this would be a great troll, except there aren't enough women to make the thread explode like a powderkeg.

[Kuciwalker]

Damn we need more women

[Mercator]

In principle, I'd agree you shouldn't give in to terrorists, but I have to agree with MtG. The Philippines only had 50 "token" men in Iraq, and they only pull out a month early anyway.

You can get all riled up about how bad terrorists are, but are 50 guys eating sand for a month really worth wasting a human life over?

Now if the Philippines had, say, a 1000 men over in Iraq, and they meant to stay another year, then I would have been a little more shocked about this.

[GePap]

The kidnappers kept their word and released the guy.

BASTARDS!

[Lancer]

Wife and eight kids get their husband and father back, God bless em.

[Urban Ranger]

As I expected, the militants would release the hostage, otherwise abductions would become a totally useless method.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As I expected, the militants would release the hostage, otherwise abductions would become a totally useless method.

Reasonable demands tend to get met. Kidnap the citizens of countries already leaving Iraq and demand they leave. Lo and behold they leave. Demands of the type they have been making are what make such actions useless and only an outlet for thier sadistic tendencies.