at the core of even what I wrote today, is that of morality, and the need for our leaders to have at the core of their acts that moral guide

Concurrent indeed. Really appreciate the work you’ve done here!

Two points. First, it is important to note that today’s approach is very different than that of the Bush administration that viewed Iraq as an opportunity to rejig the Middle East toward democracy, but that did not anticipate the sectarian violence that represents the difficulties of the Middle Eastern “Tribes” to get along since the Bible recorded the bloodletting centuries ago. The violence will continue when the US is gone; it is like Mindanao there, only worse, huge stubborn egos with guns.

Second, the US is not territorially expansive; it is expansive in wanting democracy, human rights, and freedoms. It also advances US commercial interests (trade regulations, reluctance to lead on global warming, etc.).

Here is a very different view than yours, offered by President Barak Obama in his speech to West Point cadets a couple of days ago as he set forth his goals in Afghanistan.

I would recommend you read the entire speech, as you and he could not be further apart on your perspectives. You are entitled to yours, of course.
______

“Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.”

Joe

I do not blame the U.S. government for the problems in the Philippines, its very clear that many of it are from the politicians themselves. But I couldn’t deny the influence of U.S. foreign policies (including World Bank, IMF, U.N.) interfering with the purpose of acquiring more economic and political resources. Not just in the view of the Philippines but in the view of other countries. Right now some see that the Cha-Cha is a way for foreigners to own land and companies in the Philippines. I believe that these politicians would not be as ruthless in pursuing the chacha if not being lobbied (and possibly paid) by foreign interests. I suspect that this includes VFA as private bodyguards of these investments.

I don’t really agree with Iraq and Afghanistan being the same with Japan and Germany. The real smoke I see are from the ruins in Iraq and the continuous car bombings in retaliation. After 8 years of war, no sign of Bin Laden and now they are interfering with the politics buttering up Karzai and employing his brother. If U.S. intentions in other countries are as pure as it is in their homeland, I would support the U.S. of A.

Note that many of these accusations of the U.S. expansionist agenda I have read includes many articles by U.S. journalists in and out of U.S.

Can you clarify what is immoral about it?

With the country already at unrest at her having a full 9 years in her presidency, with clear evidence of cheating, with charges of corruption. Cheating and corruption itself should have been a case of immorality. She knows it, says sorry about it, but legality says that the they were insignificant since the cases were dismissed (by her appointed people in Ombudsman and Supreme Court). Even using “immunity” in being a President (Legal but immoral). Now, not having enough, this time she’s running again for another position which obviously is against the wishes of the whole nation. Yes she is a law abiding citizen (law in the loose sense because of her doing), but she is immoral violating the spirit of the law.

And how she technically legalized the armies in mapatuan?

…In return, what did the Ampatuans receive? Among many other favors, a crucial piece of paper, as the PCIJ has written: In 2006, Executive Order 546 allowed the use of barangay tanods (village watchmen) as “force multipliers” in peace and order and counter-insurgency operations. The order gave legal sanction to civilian volunteer organizations or CVOs—and effectively legalized private armies….

from:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20091127-238632/Dynasty-tragedy

She technically legalized armies in Ampatuan.
===================================================================
Maybe we can understand each other better if you expound

Can you clarify what is immoral about it?

And how she technically legalized the armies in mapatuan?

Great to see a concurring insight.

She technically legalized armies in Ampatuan.

Yes, you are correct. I had an exchange with California’s senator Feinstein on this point, as she opposes drilling off the coast. I don’t see how you can go suck everyone else dry while holding onto your own . . . if you are taking responsibility for the condition of the bed in which you lay. Or lie. Unrestrained consumer gluttony . . .

Joe