US, British warships help distribute relief goods

[brooklynite]

Source: Manila Times

TACLOBAN CITY: United States and British warships were deployed on Tuesday to the typhoon-ravaged Visayas where more than a thousand people have been confirmed dead and countless survivors are begging for help in rain-soaked wastelands.

Four days after super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) destroyed entire coastal towns with record winds and tsunami-like waves, the magnitude of the disaster continued to build with almost unimaginable horror.

“We are certainly expecting the worst. As we get more and more access we find the tragedy of more and more people killed in this typhoon,” United Nations humanitarian operations director John Ging said.

The UN warned 10,000 people were feared dead in just one city, Tacloban, the provincial capital of Leyte province where five-meter waves flattened nearly everything in their path.

Read more: http://manilatimes.net/us-british-warships-help-distribute-relief-goods/52631/

[mahannah]

1. Excellent use of warships.

[Ace Acme]

2. It's so heartwarming that the imperial war machine can have this propaganda opportunity.

[Ranchemp.]

3. Uncalled for.

These warships are there to help and this is the best you can come up with?
This isn't propaganda, this is a humanitarian mission with the best assests able to do the job the fastest.

[Ace Acme]

6. These warships are there for the assertion of naked aggressive power nt

[Ranchemp.]

8. Bullshit.

These ships are there to help with this epic disaster, to help the people with food, shelter, aid, medical, etc..........
Your little insult just shows how heartless you are, you would rather that these people wait for aid rather than have the militaries of different nations help.

[Ace Acme]

11. Bullshit yourself.

Kindly tell us the purpose that put those warships in the region so they were available to participate in relief efforts.

Your defense of a grotesque and criminal military enterprise shows how heartless YOU are.

I never said I would rather have the people wait. I said that the military was taking the opportunity to buff up its image as if it were a humanitarian enterprise--which it is not. AFRICOM is doing the same thing in Africa--sending in uniformed troops to work on water supplies and stuff in an effort to ingratiate the US military to people in Africa.

[LanternWaste]

22. What are the specific steps the British military is doing which leads you to believe this is merely

What are the specific steps the British military is doing (vis-a-vis this particular deployment) which leads you to believe this is merely propaganda?

And, as you stated your premise as fact rather than simply editorial, you will be so kind as to cite your supporting statements with objective, peer-reviewed sources, yes?

[Ace Acme]

23. I didn't say it was "merely propaganda". I said it was propaganda.

Do you honestly expect "peer-reviewed sources" on something that just happened in the last few days, or is creating the impression that you do simply a rhetorical device?

[LanternWaste]

24. Hence, lacking any substantive citations to support your premise, it's merely editorial on your part

Hence, lacking any substantive citations to support your premise, it's merely editorial on your part-- anything else said should be predicated on that, rather than pretending it's fact. That, by definition, would be the rhetoric you so quickly indict others of. (however, I do understand the human predilection of holding others to a higher standard than we may hold ourselves...).



On edit: yes-- I do expect peer reviewed sources from anyone stating anything as fact... regardless of time frame. Else it's simply more editorial.

Peer-reviewed sources regarding the first lunar landing were available three days after the fact. In this world of instant information, I'd expect better sourcing (actually, sourcing at all would be nice).

[Ace Acme]

25. You'd expect better sourcing for the fact that the relief effort is a propaganda opportunity?

Do you need to check the weather report to confirm that the sun is shining?

[LanternWaste]

26. I imagine that may be the best rationalization we receive regarding your allegation...

I imagine that may be the best rationalization we receive regarding your allegation...




(you seem to be acting somewhat irrational-- getting angry or upset simply because others may disagree with your editorial)

[Ace Acme]

27. I'm not angry about disagreement. I am angry about the glorification of that criminal enterprise,

... the US Navy. Any decent person should be.

[loli phabay]

40. so you are okay with the royal navy then

[Ace Acme]

41. What gives you that idea?

No one else finds it noteworthy that the relief ships are not Chinese, not French, not Russian, not Italian, not Indian, not Chilean, not Canadian, not Japanese, not Danish--for the simple reason that those countries do not pepper the globe with their warships?

[loli phabay]

46. yeah all twenty or so of the royal navys frigates, destroyers and landing ships.

Kinda hard to pepper the world when you only have eighty or so vessels and most of them small patrol, minehunters and survey ships.

[EX500rider]

49. But all those countries have navies that could lend help, don't they? n/t

[Ace Acme]

50. The Spanish Navy can't help in the Philippines if all the Spanish ships are in Spanish ports. nt

[EX500rider]

51. Actually they can.....it's called leaving port. n/t

[Ace Acme]

53. And how many weeks would it be before Spanish ships could respond?

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

The point is that the US warships were nearby because US warships are all over the globe, far far away from their homeland ports.

[Ranchemp.]

82. Which is what ships do,

they sail the ocean blues and they were in the right place at the right time to be able to offer instant assistance, not, as you falsely claim, for propaganda purposes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Not really, no, the USA, UK, and France have pretty much the only blue-water navies on earth

"blue-water navy" meaning "capable of transoceanic operations".

[EX500rider]

87. Not really...

10 countries currently have operational air craft carriers, all blue water capable.

China and Japan and S Korea all have substantial navies and the navies of Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States all operate aircraft carriers and/or ships capable of carrying and operating multiple helicopters and STOVL aircraft.
Most of them don't usually operate far from from home waters but that doesn't mean they aren't able to.

Plus Task Force 150 off Somalia has included ships from the navies of Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, Pakistan and Turkey. If they can get there and patrol then they can get to the Philippines.

[Ace Acme]

88. You forgot those war-mongering Brazilians!

They sail this Naval vessel all over the world, Cisne Branco. And look at that huge imperialist flag! Could they possibly be more arrogant and transparent?

[EX500rider]

89. Or the Brazilians could send this:

São Paulo is a Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier currently in service with the Brazilian Navy.

[Ace Acme]

90. Ooh, scary! That ship is 50 years old and was bought from France for $12 million--

the cost of ONE Reaper drone.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/sao-paulo.htm

Its actual deployment in foreign waters appears to have been limited to a few exercises jointly with the Argentines.

Foreign deployment of the Brazilian Navy since WWII appears to have been limited to UN peacekeeping missions in Haiti and Lebanon.

Pray tell, how many countries has Brazil invaded lately, and how many has it bombed or threatened?

Thanks for proving my point.

[MADem]

36. It's called "thread disruption" and he's working it up and down this thread.

Obvious is obvious.

[Ace Acme]

37. I apologize for being combative.

I am somewhat sensitive about jingoism and militarism because I only recently learned that JFK not only

1) vetoed the Joint Chiefs' "Operation Northwoods" plan to create a phony incident to provide a pretext for war with Cuba

and

2) pledged in his address at the American University that the USA would never start a war

but also

3) spoke in September 1961 in support of a UN proposal for TOTAL DISARMAMENT of everybody--no navies, no air forces, no armies in the world except forces for a UN police force and small forces for unstable countries to preserve order internally

and

4) proposed that the moon landing should be a joint USA/USSR project.

Why don't we have Democrats like that any more? Why do we have so many alleged Democrats who consider war crimes to be realistic and necessary?

I'm sorry I disrupted a warm and fuzzy love fest for the navy. Carry on.

[MADem]

38. All of that happened a half century ago, and has nothing to do with this thread.

Also, JFK was a proud Navy man, until the day he was murdered.

He wouldn't approve of your hating on the Navy. He was very proud of his service in command of a PT boat during WW2, justifiably so, in fact, and he held the Navy near and dear to his heart.

His own words:

[Ace Acme]

39. It has everything to do with this thread. JFK had good reason to be proud.

Few have good reason any more.

[MADem]

42. Well, that's total horseshit, but thanks for playing.

Enjoy your time here--I suspect it will be brief.

Here's some footage of your hero observing and lauding the activities of the "imperial war machine:"

[Ace Acme]

43. As I said, JFK was an advocate of total disarmament

Your attempt to dismiss that by citing a ceremonial address and legitimate pride in WWII service is noted.

Are you suggesting that I should be banned for advocating what JFK advocated?

[MADem]

44. No he wasn't. Like I said, enjoy your visit.

Your comments about JFK have nothing to do with your nasty attitude. That's where your problem lies.

[Ace Acme]

47. JFK was an advocate of total disarmament

Your ignorance of the facts doesn't change that.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm

He expressed support for a program that "would achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."

[MADem]

52. Oh please. He's addressing the UN in your little cherry-picked example.

From your link, as you continue to disrupt this thread:

....disarmament without checks is but a shadow-and a community without law is but a shell.....

That's what he hangs his whole thesis on. He wasn't in favor of UNILATERAL disarmament, not by a long shot.

Nice try. No cigar.

[Ace Acme]

54. JFK is addressing the UN and advocating total disarmament, yes.

That's what I said.

Nobody said anything about unilateral.

[MADem]

55. Not unilateral disarmament, but you sorta missed that bit.

As you continue to disrupt this thread about a humanitarian response to a natural disaster.

[Ace Acme]

56. Total != unilateral. nt

[MADem]

57. I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, either.

Total does not mean unilateral, and even a cursory reading of that speech makes the point clear--it's, to quote Saint Ronnie of Reagan, an early version of "Trust but verify."

Your tunnel vision is impeding your view.

Your continued disruption of this thread IS noted, though.

[Ace Acme]

59. What compels you to trash the legacy of JFK?

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

He advocated total disarmament.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm

He expressed support for a program that "would achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."

Some of us suspect he was killed because he advocated total disarmament, and refused to go along with the Joint Chiefs' "Operation Northwoods" plan to create a phony incident to provide a pretext for a war with Cuba.

[MADem]

61. Not trashing, and no, he didn't--not with your definition of "total."

Stop making a spectacle of yourself. It's unseemly.

If you want to talk about conspiracy theories, there's a place for you on this board--but it isn't here, disrupting threads about humanitarian operations after a massive natural disaster in the PI.

Try this place, you'll find people who will love to chat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

Keep this poor behavior up, and you'll get all the attention you rightly deserve.

[Ace Acme]

62. So JFK's speech to the UN is a conspiracy theory?

He advocated total disarmament. That's a fact, not a theory.

[MADem]

63. You can't read, that's pretty obvious. But congratulate yourself--you have shown yourself to be

the most disrespectful poster I've seen on this board for many a year. You have COMPLETELY fucked with the OP's thread, ruined it for people who wanted to talk about the tragedy in the Philipines, all to aggrandize yourself and your half baked conspiracy theories.

Pat yourself on the back, there, Skippy. Heckuvajob.

[Ace Acme]

64. No conspiracy theory. JFK advocated total disarmanent. Fact.

Why do you want to trash JFK's legacy?

http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm

He expressed support for a program that "would achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."

[MADem]

65. Stop destroying this thread with your bullshit. This isn't a CT topic.

It's about a natural disaster in the PI.

Take your crap elsewhere, like to the CT group.

[Ace Acme]

66. Why are you trashing JFK's legacy by labeling it "CT"?

At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

JFK advocated total disarmament, as my state.gov link shows. What about that fact threatens you? Why?

http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm

JFK expressed support for a program that "would achieve, under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."

He also advocated that the USSR and the USA should pursue the moon landing jointly.

[MADem]

68. Stop talking ragtime and behaving in a disruptive manner. nt

[Ace Acme]

69. Stop trashing JFK and refusing to explain yourself

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Isn't it kind of past your bedtime, "Massachusetts"?

[Ranchemp.]

70. Nobody's trashing JFK,

we're trashing you because you came into this thread and started your bullshit disruption with your little petty insult to the U.S. Navy, the service I proudly served in as a Seabee from 68-74, who were responding to the natural disaster in the PI.
There is no propaganda involved and I'll wager that every sailor on board those ships would knock you flat if you accused them of that to their face.
As someone already said, enjoy your time here.

[Ace Acme]

72. MADem is trashing JFK's legacy when he denies it. nt

[Ranchemp.]

73. MADem is in no way trashing JFK's legacy,

you can post that lie all day, doesn't make it true.
You came into a thread about the US and British warships responding to a natural disaster of epic proportions in the PI, and immediately trashed their efforts because you have a problem with them, and you continue to disrupt a thread by posting ridiculous assertions.

I hope you enjoy your stay here.

[Ace Acme]

74. Denying the fact that JFK advocated total disarmament is trashing his legacy.

There is a propaganda campaign going on trying to paint JFK as a militarist who courageously engaged in nuclear brinksmanship with the USSR, and who started a war in Vietnam.

* JFK advocated total disarmament.
* JFK vetoed the Joint Chiefs' "Operation Northwoods" plan to create a phony terrorist attack to make a pretext for a war with Cuba
* JFK proposed that the moon shot be a joint USSR/USA effort
* JFK pledged that the USA will never start a warl

[Ranchemp.]

80. Once again, you're trying to hijack the thread

by going off topic and accusing our military of doing this for propaganda purposes, and then when called on it, you then go on a JFK legacy rant and accuse a respected member of trashing JFK's legacy.
You really need to stop.

[Ace Acme]

86. I didn't say they were doing it for propaganda purposes.

I said it presented a propaganda opportunity, and I pointed out that it was only because our warships are so ubiquitous all over the world that they could respond to a random disaster so quickly.

I think that this close to the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination it's appropriate to point out that he endorsed a UN proposal of total demilitarization. No navies. People need to know that. Especially those who think that "military forces are, regrettably, necessary", and those who don't even bother to check the facts before denying them.

[penultimate]

75. I'm not buying his outrage... It comes off as too much of caricature

[Ace Acme]

76. Right. So much more fun to psychoanalyze the messenger

... than it is to deal with the message.

If you're not outraged, you haven't been paying attention.

[MADem]

77. +1 nt

[geek tragedy]

4. And it's also heartwarming that some on the left would rather see

those people starve to death rather than see them get aid from the "imperial war machine."

[Ace Acme]

7. I didn't say that. I just object to the portrayal of the imperial navy as "there to help".

They were in the region to assert naked aggressive force, and the opportunity to help is merely exploited for propaganda value.

[geek tragedy]

9. You said it was an "assertion of naked aggressive power."

You're in here hyperventilating about how awful it is for the US military to be saving lives there.

So, you said it using a few more words than necessary.

[Ace Acme]

12. I didn't say the humanitarian aid was an "assertion of naked aggressive power."

I didn't say it was awful that they're saving lives.

I said it was awful that they're able to buff up the image of their murderous, criminal enterprise simply by doing good deeds.

I said they were THERE, in the region, available to do the humanitarian aid, because of their mission of the "assertion of naked aggressive power."

I'm sorry I compressed my message too much for you to understand.

[Ace Acme]

14. Fantasizing about what's in my mind is all you can do?

What makes you so emotional about your imperial navy?

You'd better examine that. My point is that it's wrong to feel warm fuzzies about the criminal enterprise that the US Navy has become.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. I don't fantasize over empty spaces.

In any case, you're a little too obvious. Tone the rhetoric down and pick your spots. This probably isn't one of them.

[Ace Acme]

16. This is exactly the spot and your emotionalism shows I've scored a direct hit. nt

[EX500rider]

18. "the criminal enterprise that the US Navy has become."

Please list the various "crimes" the USN has been convicted of?

[Ace Acme]

19. Criminal enterprises don't get convicted. They do plea bargains, and sacrifice patsies.

Where have you been?

[EX500rider]

20. And which crimes did the USN commit? n/t

[Ace Acme]

21. Complicity in acts of aggressive war and murder of civilians by the US military. nt

[EX500rider]

45. Well gee aren't you complicit also by paying for the whole thing?

So no, you don't have any crimes to pin on the USN

[Ace Acme]

48. What makes you think I'm paying for it?

You may be paying for it. That doesn't mean I do.

[EX500rider]

58. So if a Army squad kills some civilians..

.....a Navy dishwasher on the other side of the globe is also responsible?

[Ace Acme]

60. The Navy is not a dishwasher. Get real. The Navy provides material support. nt

Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[Ranchemp.]

71. A Navy dishwasher is an enlisted man who washes the dishes on board a ship

or a shore station.

[MADem]

28. Tell me about it.

Have to wonder if someone didn't get an "Other than Honorable" and still harbors resentments...? The vitriol makes no sense otherwise.

Nothing like the desalinization capabilities of naval vessels--they can pump out a shitload of potable water in a hurry, when there's no infrastructure left. Those people BADLY need food and water. They can deliver aid, food, medical care and help with the work of organizing morgues, burying dead, and clearing away debris.

It's good work they are doing.

[Ace Acme]

30. Vitriol about aggressive wars and murder of civilians makes no sense?

What moral universe do you live in?

[MADem]

33. I live in a universe where military forces are, regrettably, necessary.

Wake up and smell the coffee, why don't you?

And try reading the DU TOS while you sip your first cup--you're very rude and disruptive. Unnecessarily so. Ever hear the phrase "One can disagree without being disagreeable?" You might try it sometime, instead of stinking up a thread about providing help to people in crisis.

Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay. If you continue to behave like you're doing, it will be brief.

[Ace Acme]

34. Necessary for what? To keep the Mexicans and the Canadians from invading?

And how is the alleged necessity for military forces a rebuttal to the charge that they engage in aggressive war and the murder of civilians?

How was it that British and US warships just happened to be in close proximity to the Philippines? I'll tell you--because they just happen to be in close proximity to just about everywhere on the planet, is why.

[MADem]

35. Obtuse as well as rude, I see.

You want to talk military strategy, now, Skippy?

You start your OWN thread on the topic--stop shitting on this OP, which deals with a natural disaster and the humanitarian response to it.

Keep it up--we know them by their words around here.

[Ace Acme]

67. nwor nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. No, I'll tell you - the Singapore and Malaysian goverments invited the Royal Navy ship

One of the British Royal Navy's most advanced warships, the HMS Daring, arrived in Singapore on Sunday morning. The ship will take part in Bersama Shield during its visit -- a naval exercise that is under the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which groups Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Britain.

The British High Commission in Singapore said this demonstrates the UK's ongoing commitment to its defence relationship with Singapore and its global reach.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/british-royal-navy/863778.html

http://bfbs.com/news/hms-daring-help-typhoon-victims-64923.html

As for your remark in #41 "No one else finds it noteworthy that the relief ships are not Chinese, not French, not Russian, not Italian, not Indian, not Chilean, not Canadian, not Japanese, not Danish--for the simple reason that those countries do not pepper the globe with their warships?"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/9392749/Chance-to-check-out-French-naval-frigate

Yes, other countries do send their ships around the world. It's rather a point of ships - they go places.

[Ace Acme]

79. Ships go places for reasons. Our ships go places to engage in intimidation and global domination.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

10. Not the first time the Royal Navy has done good.

The Blockade of Africa began in 1807 when Britain outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navy immediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban technically applied only to British ships, other countries were supportive of the ban and gave the Royal Navy the right to search any of their ships intercepted for slaves. A notable exception was the United States, which refused.

[Ace Acme]

17. They outlawed the external trade, but internally the trade went on many years. nt

[MADem]

29. Well, never mind that the Brits made a massive FORTUNE off slave trading, before

they finally had a "come to Jesus" moment and decided it was wrong...conveniently happening AFTER they lost a war to those "awful" American colonists to whom they sold slaves so those slaves could pick that cotton and tobacco and export it back to UK so they could make a massive bundle of cash off of the misery of the oppressed.

I mean, get REAL--do you seriously think that NO SLAVES were imported into the "colonies" before 1776? And assuming you don't think that, who in hell do you think was doing the importing...and WHY?

You need a history lesson. I hate revisionism, and that post reeks of it. The UK was the dealer, the US was the customer, and slaves were the heroin. UK played a huge role in our SHAME, make no mistake.

[Ace Acme]

31. And the Brits sided with the South in the Civil War nt

[MADem]

32. If the south had won, I suspect they wouldn't have felt so squeamish about subjugating their fellow

humans....it's all about the bottom line.

[hack89]

83. No they did not

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861–65. Elite opinion tended to favour the Confederacy, while public opinion tended to favour the United States. Large scale trade continued in both directions with the United States, with the Americans shipping grain to Britain while Britain sent manufactured items and munitions. Immigration continued into the United States. British trade with the Confederacy was limited, with a little cotton going to Britain and some munitions slipped in by numerous small blockade runners. The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France, which didn't happen; intervention would have meant war with the United States. A serious diplomatic dispute with the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861; it was resolved peacefully in a few months. A long-term issue was the British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) building two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama,[1] over vehement protests from the United States. The controversy was resolved after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15.5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships. The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the United States into declaring war against Britain. The U.S. diplomatic mission headed by Minister Charles Francis Adams, Sr. proved much more successful than the Confederate missions, which were never officially recognized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War

[Ace Acme]

84. Officially neutral. In practice, Brits ran Union blockades to supply munitions to the Rebs. nt

[hack89]

85. They sold munitions to both sides.

their overall trade with the Confederates was miniscule compared to the Union - wheat from the Union was a staple of the British food supply. The north was a huge buyer of British manufactured goods - the south not so much.

[Ace Acme]

91. OK, my mistake. I knew they supplied arms to the Rebs, and assumed that was siding with them. nt

[BlueToTheBone]

5. I had this visual that there will be so many of these

environmental catastrophes that there won't be time for war, these guys will be to busy cleaning up after the last disaster!