Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (78310)	2/28/2003 10:48:04 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Yeah, that must be right. President Bush doesn't lie. Rascal@ bigsnort.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (78310)	2/28/2003 9:26:03 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It may be that the administration doesn't want to lie… Maybe he'd rather tell the truth, and let the chips fall etc., than lie. If you cannot tell a lie, why negotiate an agreement that forces you to tell a lie? I might take offense at your assertion (and the assertion of the person linked by Tekboy) that the area is in such a state that they could and should (two different assessments) get away with the most arrant lies about US activities without ruffling feathers. We were talking less of arrant lies than of blurred edges. It’s a somewhat complex situation, and in some ways almost bizarre. The basic realities are these: the US thinks the Abu Sayyaf is an international problem, and wants to do something about it. The Philippine Constitution does not allow foreign troops in the country except as provided for by treaty. No treaty that would cover combat operations exists. We have a Visiting Forces Agreement in place that covers training exercises. So we have these options: First, we could ignore the Philippine Constitution and send troops in unilaterally. That might make sense if Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were camped in the Bud Daju crater, but they aren’t, and the Abu Sayyaf just isn’t worth the trouble that invading a democratic ally would create. Second, we could provide equipment, training, and field advice to the Philippine armed forces, to enable them to deal with the threat on their own. This is completely legal on both sides, puts nobody on the spot, and is sufficient to meet the threat, which is quite limited. Both tekboy’s friend and I think this is the most appropriate response. Third, we could do what we did on Basilan: stretch the definition of “training exercise” a bit, send people into the field with Philippine troops, and be prepared to blur the edges a bit if necessary. The weird thing is that we don’t even know for sure who’s lying. The government in Manila says they’ve negotiated a training exercise. The big mouth in the Pentagon says we’re sending troops into combat. The White House statement was so vague that it could be interpreted any way you like. My comment that I don’t care if the words that need to be said are true or not have to be taken in context. If we negotiated with Manila to follow a “training exercise” format and be prepared to blur the edges under certain circumstances, we are required to support them in their effort to present the exercise to their own people in legal terms. If we weren’t prepared to do that, we should never have negotiated the agreement in the first place. You have no idea how hard it was for me to resist the temptation to produce some quips over the idea of a politician that won't tell lies. I deserve congratulations, I think.