Monday, November 16, 2009

Sunday's clash

A few days back, I posted an entry wherein, in simple terms, I dissed militants. It stemmed from a quote by Terry Ridon, secretary-general of the League of Filipino Students, posted on ABS-CBN's news site.

If one gets past my catty language -- and I would understand if he/she can't -- I would summarize my entry as such:

    a) No system is perfect (although it can be improved, but I didn't write that in my post) and I feel that in general, rallyists are being overly critical especially because,
    b) We need all the help this country can get especially for Ondoy victims

Hence, I stand by my entry.

Now, Terry is passionate about his cause and would take no crap especially from a "simple-minded" blogger like me (:-P) -- so he posted his response in the comments section. Madness ensued, and for that, I apologize. (So yeah, while Pacquiao was preparing to fight Cotto, I was in the middle of my own match, lol.)

If you can get past all that mudslinging, partly mine, in the comments section -- and I would understand if you can't -- Terry eventually did expound on his organization's position regarding VFA. May point sila... but I'm wondering, if it's unconstitutional, why hasn't the Supreme Court stepped in (especially, as I quote Terry, the SC itself is discrediting the treaty)? There must be a literature out there that addresses this question but I don't have the time to research it now. And also, Terry says the US didn't have to invoke the VFA to justify its humanitarian causes, but from what I heard the US Embassy say, the VFA allowed the US to respond immediately, and I assume, due to logistical reasons.

On my part, I am OK for this country to do everything to rid itself of terrorists, even if it means having American soldiers over. If they engage in criminal activities, then they should be sent to jail, not the embassy. I will repeat it again: this country needs all the help that it can get. (And I think those who live in constant fear of the Abu Sayyaf and other terrorist groups should have a larger say in this. During Clinton's Manila forum, Ces Drilon said Mindanaoans approve of the VFA. I don't know where she got her data, though.)

I promised to post his entire rebuttal here, but I realized it is not quite fitting to this blog's theme, which is essentially fluff (insert self-deprecating humor here) so I will just summarize it and invite you over to the comments section for the full version.

Summary:

    a) VFA, as it is a military treaty, makes no mention of humanitarian aid.
    b) Any country may send the Philippines aid; no treaty is necessary.
    c) VFA is biased for US soldiers, not for say, rape victims.
    d) "VFA is in complete violation of national sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Constitution, which prohibits the stay of foreign troops, the existence of foreign military bases, facilities and equipment."

As his final note, Terry says, "The issue during Clinton's visit is the demand for the abrogation of the VFA, and no other. Not disaster relief, which could be done without the VFA."


0 * :

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...