Luke Espiritu on slamming Marcos in debate: It was Gadon who raised the ...

Sound Bites and Blurbs

 

Political Sound Bite and Blurbs

 

Why Ukraine Will Win. And Why Leni Robredo Was Right On Ukraine

Jesus Falcis 

 

Some Filipinos believe that the Philippines should remain neutral and not side with either Ukraine or Russia in their conflict. Some even praise Duterte for allegedly being a master tactician because he is "friends with all, enemy to none."

First of all, we cannot be neutral in such conflict. The Philippines is a peace-loving nation and adheres to the principles on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-aggression under the United Nations Charter. As such, we have a duty under international law to condemn any invader and aggressor - in this case, clearly it is Russia.

Second, our interests are quite similar with Ukraine. There is a neighboring state who is slowly violating its sovereignty and conducting creeping invasion (Russia invading Crimea in 2014). For us, we have China creeping on our waters by building artificial islands and preventing resupply missions by our Armed Forces in Ayungin Shoal and the Kalayaan Island Group.

We need to stand with Ukraine because allowing Russia to get away with invasion will embolden and act as a modern precedent for other countries, like China, to do the same. All states in the world must show and be shown that there are real and severe costs to invasion.

Third, Duterte is no tactician. He is a kowtower. He is not mere friends with Putin and Xi Jin Ping. He grovels before them. If Duterte is a real tactician, we would not have lost Sandy Cay under his term and our fishermen would really be free to fish in Scarborough shoal and our fishing boats being crashed into by Chinese ships in Recto Bank would not have happened.

And there is no such thing as being friends to all, enemies to none in case of war. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Real talk, ang gusto maging neutral - duwag! Duwag manindigan para sa tama.

"But wait, FALSES, you are promoting war! Gusto mo ng gyera? Why drag us into a war."

Nge. Of course not! Nobody wants war. And the Philippines siding with Ukraine will not lead to war for us. But allowing Russia to get away with invasion WILL lead to war in our region in the future because it will give China license to invade Taiwan.

"Pano ka naman sure na siding with Ukraine will not lead to war for us?"

Errrmm, Singapore just sided with Ukraine. Singapore will block certain Russian banks and financial transactions connected to Russia. Ginyera ba ang Singapore?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/.../russia-sanctions...

Taiwan. Japan. Australia. All in the Asia-Pacific region. Hindi lang EU and the US. Even the historically war-neutral country Switzerland is going to side with Ukraine. When the whole world is united against an invader, it will work. Russia can't wage a war against the whole world.

Plus, it deters other wanna be invaders - like China. And anyway, why would you be scared of China going to war with the Philippines? That's more propaganda and a ghostly threat. It's unlikely. Haller, before they will invade the Philippines, they will have to invade Taiwan first which is more similar to Ukraine-Russia in terms of China claiming Taiwan under the One China Policy.

So that's one reason why DDS are wrong. But worst, some people think siding with Russia is better because Russia will win.

Russia is actually currently losing. Ukraine is still in control of Kyiv and other major cities and locations. Russia is incurring massive costs and casualties.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndepe.../status/1497895706568237056

Ukraine is also suffering but less so.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndepe.../status/1498043407029223427

Russia was not able to properly conduct a Blitzkrieg and massively overestimated itself and underestimated Ukraine since 2014. After Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, Ukraine massively built up its forces from within and with help from EU countries.

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204

In particular, before Russia invaded last week, Ukraine was able to beef up it's anti-tank NLAW weapons thanks to other countries and used it successfully during the invasion to blow up many Russian tanks. In the last few days, many EU countries are sending military supplies. Germany ended its pacifist stance by sending arms and military aid to Ukraine.

Russia is also suffering from severe sanctions not just from the US and Europe but also as I said above from Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and others. Russia was slapped with SWIFT sanctions, which is exclusion from modern financial payment networks (credit cards and the like). This is massive because Russia cannot sell its oil and gas as easily anymore. SWIFT sanctions were the same sanctions imposed on Iran, which had to ask for sanctions relief. The value of the Russian Ruble has tumbled to a recent historic low.

https://twitter.com/steve_hanke/status/1498140235875635200

So no, Russia is very unlikely to win. (Of course, a nuclear war is a different issue but before commenting, read up on mutually assured destruction first).

But not only did the DDS think Russia is likely to win, they also thought no one will stand for Ukraine. Even though they were quickly proven wrong over the weekend, they were mocking Vice President Leni Robredo for having answered in a previous debate interview (DZRH) that Ukraine was showing how it can fight for its rights under a rules-based approach.

Guys, hindi porket nag-invade ang Russia eh mali na si VP Leni. Hindi porket nag-invade ang Russia, it doesn't mean Ukraine isn't showing how it is fighting under a RULES-BASED approach.

A rules-based approach includes all the things Ukraine is doing now. A defensive war is rules-based. Calling on other peace-loving countries to help is rules-based. Other countries giving military aid for a defensive war is rules-based. Other countries sanctioning Russia is definitely rules-based under international law.

Kaya wag kayong tanga. Hindi porket may nag violate ng rules eh ibig sabihin walang kwenta ang rules-based approach.

Pag ba may pumatay ng tao (murder), eh wala na kwenta ang batas? Ganun din sa international law and international order. Just because someone committed to invasion does not mean there are no rules or that rules-based approach does not work.

And seryoso ba kayo, mahina si VP Leni kaya wag iboto as President and head of state ng Pilipinas? Mahina dahil babae?

Si VP Leni lang naman ang may support ng retired ambassadors and diplomats and foreign service personnel.

Si VP Leni lang naman yung gumulat kay biased Antonio Contreras na kelangan i-secure muna yung 342 Filipinos in Ukraine if war erupts.

Si VP Leni lang naman yung ONLY candidate in yesterday's CNN PH Debates to mention the Instruments of Power or the DIME approach in international relations (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic approach) and how she'll use such framework in her foreign policy towards the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

And most importantly, retired AFP Generals trust VP Leni enough to meet her and discuss with her national security issues. May ganyan ba ang mga ibang candidates??

Malakas si Leni dahil matalino. Malakas si Leni dahil masipag at laging handa. Malakas si Leni dahil naniniwala sa kanya ang mga diplomats at generals.

Ukraine is the victim. Russia is the aggressor. And Leni Robredo is a capable Commander-in-Chief.

Pinoy Humor In Photos

 

Lito Atienza Has No Interest in Working With BBM

 One news that caught my attention was a recent item from Daily Pedia -  an internet site where the latest news, information, trends, topics, and happenings around the globe are featured and shared online.  One such item was Rep Lito Atienza's pronouncement that he has no interest in working with Bongbong Marcos should he win as Vice President. Wow, big words huh? And a little bit intriguing.

Before somebody misconstrued me, I have to say this firsthand I am apolitical. I don't side with anybody nor do I have a party affiliation.  Besides living in America, I don't have the chance to exercise SUFFRAGE or my right to vote.  So we just listen to the news, but it aches me to ask this question to netizens living in the Philippines and get the pulse of how they react to certain issues like this one.

Here is the content of the issue and I am reprinting it in toto:

Vice presidential candidate Lito Atienza doesn’t see himself working with presidential aspirant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr should they win in this year’s national elections/ Atienza will consider giving up the position to the next candidate who comes in second in the race.

“Iba po ang ugali ni Bongbong eh. Sabi nga ng kanyang sariling ama, nung siya’y lumalaki pa lamang bilang isang batang lalaki ay tamad,” he told ABS-CBN’s Teleradyo.Marcos is seen as lazy by voters for not appearing during the first hearing by the Comelec on the disqualification cases against him. He also refused to be interviewed by Kapuso broadcaster Jessica Soho.

“There are great big chances I would not serve with him, even President (Rodrigo) Duterte calls him pothead. Biro mo babantayan ko pa ang aking president. Siguro yung sumusunod sa’kin yun ang ating paglingkurin. Wala po along gagawing iba kundi bantayan ang presidente. Lugi na naman ang bayan.” he added.

Marcos tested negative for illegal drugs following Duterte’s claim that a presidential candidate snorts coke.

He challenged Marcos’ spokesperson, lawyer Vic Rodriguez to debate and proved that the Martial Law era had some upsides.

“If you prove me wrong, I will retire from politics altogether and apologize to the nation. But if I prove you wrong and I’m able to prove Marcos indeed abused the Filipino people, kaya siya tinatawag na the biggest crook in the world… Nakakahiya ang biggest thief in the world ay Pilipino,” he said.

“Hindi tayo sa social media magdedebate. Hinahamon kita ng debate face-to-face sa television o kaya naman face-to-face sa publiko, Plaza Miranda.”

Former first lady, Imelda Marcos was convicted of 7 counts of graft while her son was convicted for failing to pay taxes.

CNN's Presidential Debate: The Morning After

 Mini-review of the candidates, CNN debate-style and other highlights, and sidelights:

1. Was it just me?  Just like in US presidentiaL debates only Isko Moreno has the habit of facing the candidate that was responding and he listened intently to their answers. That to me is respect for the person talking. The rest were oblivious and unmindful of what is going on. And when the forum was over he made an effort to shake the hands of each one of them. Mayor napaka-gentleman mo!

2. I wish everybody attends all debates and does not depend on who sponsors the event.  I wish they can make debates in the future mandatory and compulsory. When you are applying for a government position, especially the highest position ...you have to attend debates, not because your adviser advises you not to. Choosing the principle of expediency, some candidates refused to take part in the debate that will expose their vulnerabilities, susceptibility, and culpability.

3. The problem with this style of debate is that no one was there to challenge their stand. Other candidates can fire up the discussion by questioning the answer of another candidate, making follow-up questions, or delving deeper into the issues. No one knows if they really know what they were saying at that time if they were not given the time to challenge each candidate in a healthy discussion.

4.  I am not discriminating against nuisance candidates or candidates who could not bring an iota of supporters in their fold. Bringing nine of the 10 candidates is just too many.  I know we are asking everybody to attend the debates, but having ten of them around will have a discrepancy in giving everybody the chance to speak.  Out of the nine, the Muslim brother has the least opportunity to speak if time allotment becomes an issue.  They could have limited it to five like the one sponsored by KBP to give more time for rebuttal and a lively discussion.

5. A classic debate needs fewer participants almost like the SMNI. Debate is not like Q and A in beauty contests. It is not just two people talking. It is a well-reasoned argument about two contrasting points of view.  In fact, the verb form evolves from an old French debatre which means to fight. So it is a fight for what you stand for. Just like finding yourself in the midst of the debate between Atlanta Braves and Los Angeles Angels. It can get ugly. And this forum was just too tame for comfort, I want to see Manny lose his cool and give his opponents a 123 punch. LOL.

6. Ping Lacson's plan of giving the LGU the money for the infrastructure is ill-advised.  We want to stop corruption, but isn't it giving it freely to LGU will start another round of corruption?  Nobody can stop Pinoys, especially when the temptation to steal is brought to the local level. In this debate, any candidate worth his salt could have challenged that. But it went pphhht just like a sizzling steak that forgets to sizzle.

7. I can't help but agree with Montemayor, this is not a debate but a forum.  However, his attack on Isko about the 15 million dollar money was made as a big surprise of the night, and was that a ploy to make himself relevant?  Notice that when Isko answered him back, he retreated in instant sensing he can have trouble with his claims.

8. Manny has his heart in the right place, but he has a problem articulating what he wants to convey. Faisal Mangondato stammered and stuttered showing signs of a bumbling and stumbling Joe Biden. They are in the same boat and all roads point the direction to senility.

9. Everybody pointed out the Bureau of Customs as the haven and sanctuary for all corruptions.  They should go no further because law enforcement is a not-so-distant second.

10.  Everybody spoke Tagalog or was English not allowed in this forum?  Is this show catering to the masses, and how about the people living abroad or anybody interested to know about Philippine politics?  For myself, I want my president to be English proficient as he needs to be placed side by side with the Presidents of other countries.

11.  And it looked like the 2022 Presidential election is more like an election of personalities, not an election of viewpoints.

It looked like the voters have already found themselves in the box, packaged simply, cheaply, and conveniently.