US not seeking base in Philippines

US not seeking base in Philippines

There are 6 comments on the Suria story from Sep 20, 2013, titled US not seeking base in Philippines. In it, Suria reports that:

The United States said Friday that it was not seeking a permanent base in the Philippines as the allies expand military cooperation at a time of tension with China.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Suria.

Brain Twister

Surrey, Canada

#1 Sep 20, 2013
We will just use them until ALL those chinks are all dead.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2 Sep 22, 2013
No need for a Global Military presence, if our citizens don't agree to defend children being killed with chemical warfare.....

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#3 Sep 22, 2013
Blue i will say we now know where the chemical weapons Bush was after went.. It was speculated before we even invaded that they were being moved to Syria.. At the time I pretty much like most Americans dismissed that argument as bunk..

This was a very hard decision for most Americans, Not going in. If you think we don't have feeling especially for the children you would be wrong, of course we do.

Unlike Bush who actually had a coalition behind him this time we don't, It would be the US pretty much going in alone.. Where is the world outrage in this as before ? Even our closes ally the British said no. I like most American's are not indifferent to the suffering of those children.

It's honesty more I think the solutions being offered will not accomplish anything, and risks an excitation with no end in sight. Both sides in this civil war have no love for American's.. So helping either one aids one of our enemies.. It's a catch 22.

I do support some action, just not the actions that I've heard so far..
heressssssssssss s kenny

Burol, Philippines

#4 Sep 22, 2013
Sugarbabies64 wrote:
Blue i will say we now know where the chemical weapons Bush was after went.. It was speculated before we even invaded that they were being moved to Syria.. At the time I pretty much like most Americans dismissed that argument as bunk..
This was a very hard decision for most Americans, Not going in. If you think we don't have feeling especially for the children you would be wrong, of course we do.
Unlike Bush who actually had a coalition behind him this time we don't, It would be the US pretty much going in alone.. Where is the world outrage in this as before ? Even our closes ally the British said no. I like most American's are not indifferent to the suffering of those children.
It's honesty more I think the solutions being offered will not accomplish anything, and risks an excitation with no end in sight. Both sides in this civil war have no love for American's.. So helping either one aids one of our enemies.. It's a catch 22.
I do support some action, just not the actions that I've heard so far..
American and British chemical companies supplies the basic compounds for those weapons -now you want to cry because someone used them ?? what did you think they were used for -now you want to justify the Iraq war too ??? truly delusional.

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#5 Sep 22, 2013
Nobody is justifying anything kenny, this is a matter of history what happened.. If anything I'm saying it was a mistake of the American people to dismiss the reports of the chemical weapons going to Syria..

And if you read my previous post I have been against going to war. I don't like any of the options being given so far..

You don't hit someone and expect them to just stand there and take it. And I have said all a long Syria and Russia will not just stand there and take it. It will escalate, you can bet on it...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#6 Sep 23, 2013
Sugarbabies64 wrote:
Blue i will say we now know where the chemical weapons Bush was after went.. It was speculated before we even invaded that they were being moved to Syria.. At the time I pretty much like most Americans dismissed that argument as bunk..
This was a very hard decision for most Americans, Not going in. If you think we don't have feeling especially for the children you would be wrong, of course we do.
Unlike Bush who actually had a coalition behind him this time we don't, It would be the US pretty much going in alone.. Where is the world outrage in this as before ? Even our closes ally the British said no. I like most American's are not indifferent to the suffering of those children.
It's honesty more I think the solutions being offered will not accomplish anything, and risks an excitation with no end in sight. Both sides in this civil war have no love for American's.. So helping either one aids one of our enemies.. It's a catch 22.
I do support some action, just not the actions that I've heard so far..
Well, we knew he had them when he killed the Kurds, so even back then Syria looked like the best choice, if they left Iraq.....President Obama shoulda had an 12 hour reign of missiles, bombing and flyovers......Assad would be dead now....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Navy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News HBOa s new John McCain documentary omits Trump ... 3 hr He Named Me Black... 1
News Lash Hansborough: Second Amendment no longer ap... 18 hr FormerParatrooper 3
News Russian 'sabre-rattling' sees rising Royal Navy... 23 hr yay4gayporn 12
News AG Holder worries about revenge for bin Laden (May '11) May 22 DeNiro jr 213
News Steve Scott inspiring many with his childrena s... May 14 Will Dockery 1
News Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? (Mar '10) May 13 wikiweb 81
News Metrorail as a revival mechanism for the inner ... May 11 allen 1