philipines withdraw troops for sake of hostage

chewy

surprised by this although as you no i don't like this war but as far as i understand the " we don't negotiate with terrorist/kidnappers" i would sorta agree with that...

these demands for people to go out and protest when on their country is kidnapped are strange firstly there alredy people out protesting and then it allows the hawks to say hey look there obeying the whim of terrorists


one take on the news http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/12/194644/551

It's hard to fault the Phillipines. Their 50 soldiers, all doing humanitarian tasks, were scheduled to leave Iraq on August 20. So it was difficult to forfeit the life of the hostage in order to keep those troops in country for a mere 30 days extra.....

Champ

I think they did do the right thing; perhaps it can be viewed short sighted when considering the "war on terror"; but the loss of 50 troops is hardly crippling (taking into account the total number of foreign troops) and if it is just for an extra 30 days...

Whether for political or moral reasons; the lives of one of their people has come first.. which to me seems proper; i.e help your own people first before you help others...

Probably not the most perfect outlook in the world but surely not the worst...

Tommy Vercetti

I applaud the Philipines govt. for taking this brave step to save the life of one of their citizens ahead of the bull**** war on terror/WMD/[insert this week's excuse here].

Sleipnir

I doubt he'll ever complain about paying his taxes ever again.

Not sure if it was a good or bad decision. Now kidnappers across Iraq will see that it can work.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
I applaud the Philipines govt. for taking this brave step to save the life of one of their citizens ahead of the bull**** war on terror/WMD/[insert this week's excuse here].

It's not brave, it's capitulating to terrorism. Pulling their troops out early might have saved that guys life, but odds are it will cost many more people their lives now that these people have seen that this tactic can work. Cue far more abuctions and beheadings, with a further negative impact on rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure which plays right into the hands of those same terrorists. Government myopia on a grand scale.

RampagingBadger

I think it's pretty selfish of them. All they're soldiers are out now so no philipino will be kidnapped but it'll give the militants increased impotace to kidnap foreigners. :mad:

Sparks

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
I think it's pretty selfish of them. All they're soldiers are out now so no philipino will be kidnapped but it'll give the militants increased impotace to kidnap foreigners. :mad:

So? They're the phillipino government, with a specific mandate to look after philipinos. Now, if you want them to look out for every other citizen of the world, that's fine - but you'll have to give them some things in return - like the legal right to tax every other citizen in the world, amongst other things....

Sand

What a great result.

50 less philipino soldiers doing humanitarian work ( im sure they were fitting in some war crime atrocities when and where they could ) and a huge morale booster for terrorists engaged in the "Kidnap and blackmail/murder" scheme.

Its saved this guys life, maybe, but its going to cost many more their lives. If this was the US doing this the usual corner would be denouncing it as the US valuing americans lives as being worth more than non-american lives.

Sand

i.e help your own people first before you help others...

Just noticed this....When you say people, would you extend that to say whites should look out for whites before they look out for blacks? Its a logical exstension of your view.

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
So? They're the phillipino government, with a specific mandate to look after philipinos. Now, if you want them to look out for every other citizen of the world, that's fine - but you'll have to give them some things in return - like the legal right to tax every other citizen in the world, amongst other things....

So can we expect you to apply this logic to the US government in the next Third World/generic AIDS drugs/International Criminal Court thread?

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Just noticed this....When you say people, would you extend that to say whites should look out for whites before they look out for blacks? Its a logical exstension of your view.

It certainly would be ... if there was a legally elected "white peoples" government which stated it's purpose was to safeguard white people...
And I think if you were to try to set up such a government, you'd have to have a country exclusively for white people, where discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity was legal.

So basicly, yes, it's a logical extension - but it requires a few other axioms to be true, and you didn't state them...

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
So can we expect you to apply this logic to the US government in the next Third World/generic AIDS drugs/International Criminal Court thread?

Sure. If helping others would directly cause US civilians to be killed, then there is an argument to not help others.
On the other hand, US soldiers serving with the UN don't get covered, because the US signed a treaty to supply troops. And troops aren't civilians.
And you can't argue that the US can't send civilian aid workers to aids clinics in Africa because they might be caught up in fighting and killed, because that's a preventable and unintentional tragedy, not a direct result of sending them.

Champ

Just noticed this....When you say people, would you extend that to say whites should look out for whites before they look out for blacks? Its a logical exstension of your view.

Okay i'll clarify it.. the well being of a country's member population / citizens should be prioritised before giving international aid.

I don't think its right if say; a country was exporting massive quantities of food on aid consignments if its own population was slowly starving.

And i don't personally divide people between different classes such as whites and blacks.... People are all part of the human race.

Arthur Krupp

and thus terror scratches another victory when playing to the weaknesses of political fickilty-to a military man this person is an acceptable loss in the bigger picture, to a politition he is the ticket to the next big election...

Sand

Sure. If helping others would directly cause US civilians to be killed, then there is an argument to not help others.

It does. Think what that 15 billion spent on aids drugs could do for the poor in the US. Clearly there is no moral argument for spending this cash on foreigners when there is poor in the US. There is a stronger moral argument for spending it on a greater US military budget as it will be more in the interest of US citizens than spending it on foreigners.

Okay i'll clarify it.. the well being of a country's member population / citizens should be prioritised before giving international aid.

And i don't personally divide people between different classes such as whites and blacks.... People are all part of the human race.

You dont see the contradiction? You say all people are human beings but thats just a soundbyte on your part. What youve already stated is that you dont see everyone as human beings but as Philipino ( for example) and non Philipino, with Philipinos having a greater duty to fellow Philipinos than to non-Philipinos.

Lets run with this, its a great principle.... Christians have a greater duty to Christians than non-Christians, Whites to Whites rather than non-Whites. If concern for other human beings is to be limited by nationality ( which can change by treaty or revolution ) then why not religion, race, language? If nationality has some intrinsic value then surely the above 3 are just as good defintions if not better of who we are and a common heritage.

If the Philipino decision is correct or defensible on those grounds, then it leads down the path where I, as an Irish citizen, should not be as concerned about the exploitation of Philipino workers as it benefits my fellow Irish citizens to get consumer goods cheaper from their sweatshops. Afterall, we as Irish should be more concerned with Irish people and their fate than with Philipinos. Let the Philipino government worry about them. Its not my problem. Whats morally good is what is practically good for Ireland from my point of view.

This is great - moral justification for colonialism, slavery, genocide and so on.

Capt'n Midnight

A bit supprised at this considering the problems they have with mulim [freedon fighters/terrorists] in southern islands back home. So while a life has been saved/spared in iraq it might actually put more lives in danger back home.

BattleBoar

It will be interesting to see if they actually get him back alive after all of this.

Victor

Hostage taking in several Arab countries is largely a matter of "business" rather than crime. Part of it is tribalism - you kidnap from opposing tribes, not your own.

If someone is killed, blood money is paid to prevent a revenge killing. Deals are done. The relative wealth of foreigners has raised the price of blood money in Iraq over the last year.

However, I will admit that the current spate of kidnappings are very much media- and internationally-aware. It's a hard call for governments to make when the kidnappers consider the victim.... 'replaceable' ... there is no inherent worth seen in any particular victim (although the victim's country and job does create a 'scale') and thus they become 'disposable'. There is less reason for the kidnapper to not kill a particular victim.

Giving into the kidnappers openly is creating a problem. There had been a pattern internationally the certain countries (e.g. Germany) were willing to quietly deal, others (USA) were much less willing (Iranian embassy / Lebanon are the only examples that come to mind, but both were parts of bigger deals).

Champ

You dont see the contradiction? You say all people are human beings but thats just a soundbyte on your part. What youve already stated is that you dont see everyone as human beings but as Philipino ( for example) and non Philipino, with Philipinos having a greater duty to fellow Philipinos than to non-Philipinos.

Okay... so by your logic you shouldn't have a greater commitment to say your family because that would make say your neighbours by your view not fellow human beings?

And note that i don't see how recognising human beings and different nationalities is mutually exclusive.

Lets run with this, its a great principle.... Christians have a greater duty to Christians than non-Christians, Whites to Whites rather than non-Whites. If concern for other human beings is to be limited by nationality ( which can change by treaty or revolution ) then why not religion, race, language? If nationality has some intrinsic value then surely the above 3 are just as good defintions if not better of who we are and a common heritage.

Okay i'll clarify it.. the well being of a country's member population / citizens should be prioritised before giving international aid.

I didn't say limited; nor did i imply that concern for other human beings should be negelected outside of a nation. If you want to be precise about this i said "prioritised".
The core of this is nationality. Religion, race and language are different things. They make up a nationality in more than a few diverse ways; but are not equivalent to it by themselves. Therefore mentioning them in that context has little merit. Remember we're dealing with nation interactions? Unless your going to explain to me how a nation is made up exclusively of 1 Religion, 1 Race, and 1 Language?

If the Philipino decision is correct or defensible on those grounds, then it leads down the path where I, as an Irish citizen, should not be as concerned about the exploitation of Philipino workers as it benefits my fellow Irish citizens to get consumer goods cheaper from their sweatshops. Afterall, we as Irish should be more concerned with Irish people and their fate than with Philipinos. Let the Philipino government worry about them. Its not my problem. Whats morally good is what is practically good for Ireland from my point of view.

Once again i'll state that i said prioritised. I didn't say that it should come at the hardship, misery and expense of other people in a different country; or that we should ignore external occurences. Or are you going to argue now that the well being of a nation is synominis with mistreatment, cruelty and injustice in another?

This is great - moral justification for colonialism, slavery, genocide and so on.

Totally out of proportion... i'll point out that i never condoned nor indicated these or other such acts as conductive towards the issue...

I'm going to say this; its not impossible to make sure your own citiziens are well; before assisting another nation; while not acting like a criminal.

cleareyed

the lives of one of their people has come first..

So how will this work for the govt. in Manila. The Muslim terrorists AT HOME in the Phillippines will capture a few hostages and say let us establish an Islamist theocracy or we saw someone's head off. So they get that. What do they want next? Well we want x, y, z (fill in appropriate fundametalist demand e.g. no democracy in iraq, return of andalucia from spain, properly organised sectarian massacres in Sudan) or we saw someone's head off. If the PIRA threatened it...what if the UDA then counter threatened...
Why is it that cowardice is fashionable?

cleareyed

Well said Sand. Just read your demolition of that garbage post.

Champ

So how will this work for the govt. in Manila. The Muslim terrorists AT HOME in the Phillippines will capture a few hostages and say let us establish an Islamist theocracy or we saw someone's head off

Before this continues:

it can be viewed short sighted when considering the "war on terror"

Probably not the most perfect outlook

Before you start putting all sorts of different scenarios up; i didn't say it was the best view to take; and acknowledged that it can be view as counter-productive action in regards to fighting terrorism.

My stance is that getting the man home was a right thing to do; unless you think that lives are expendable? That its right to forfeit a person's life?

LegacyUser

philipino polititions's are elected to look after what is best for their own, ie who voted them into power, regardless of race colour creed blah blah blah, they did what they were elected and paid to do, look after their own

BattleBoar

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
philipino polititions's are elected to look after what is best for their own, ie who voted them into power, regardless of race colour creed blah blah blah, they did what they were elected and paid to do, look after their own

Did they though? Or, did they set their citizens up for more kidnappings and threats having demonstrated that such tactics are effective at influencing their national policy? It's a very difficult call, and I'm glad I'm not having to make it.

Again, I have always had my suspicions that some of the hostages were killed very shortly after the initial video showing they were OK. I hope that after all they have gone through, they do get him back alive. It would be a terrible pity to expose their citizens as effective bargaining chips for capitulation only to have the reason for doing so become moot.

Gurgle

51 troops in the country is quite clearly only token support for what is being done in Iraq. Its not as if they were leading the war.

Withdrawing these troops shouldn't be seen as a message that they will give in to terrorism in their own country. Its not the same thing.