General Info

[QUOTE=Hutsori;1501555]Anyone know of a place doing an American-style Thanksgiving supper tonight in Makati, Pasay or Manila. I can only find a place in Ortigas, and I don't want the travel hassle. Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]Based on your British spellings I had assumed you were from the mother country. Keep in mind that, even though the Pilgrim dinner was ostensibly to celebrate surviving (minus those who didn't) the first harsh year, the Pilgrims and British were equally pleased to be rid of each other. Pilgrims were escaping what they perceived to be British, and before that Dutch, persecution. The British were glad to see them leave. They didn't like the Pilgrims' version of Puritanism, their rabble-rousing, and their wife-swapping. So just be sure you know what you're celebrating.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost;1501650]The British were glad to see them leave. They didn't like the Pilgrims' version of Puritanism, their rabble-rousing, and their wife-swapping.[/QUOTE]Fortunately the Brits have matured. Smile.

[QUOTE=X Man;1501279]Wonderfully succinct.[/QUOTE]None of these are cogent reasons for any significant US base in the PI.

Ten years ago deep water was thought to be the solution for world oil and then along came the Bakken. With fracking and directional drilling N Dakota produces more oil than most middle eastern countries and by 2017 the IEA states USA will be the top oil producer ahead of Saudi. Off shore oil fields newly discovered almost seem like a monthly event to anyone following the DW driller markets and with time it's very likely the impact of an undeveloped SCS will have negligible economic and strategic effects, for certain, on US politics.

Where's Zamboanga? I guess if those guys make inroads and manage to take out MOA or hit the embassy there off Roxas that might be a different story. Take your pic on any given African or SW Asian country for reasons to set up yet more US bases since the threat from the southern archipelago there in the PI is almost negligible.

On Korea (ok, I'm just butting in) today you've got Chinese running sorties to meet and greet our guys flying over the "New" air defense zone in the East China Sea. You have a bushy haired never do well with some number of nukes and a penchant for exporting nasty things to guys who really hate the US. If all that's not enough, the guy hangs out with Dennis Rodman.

No doubt we'll end up with some status agreement with the PI and perhaps even a few small leased bases. Korea will remain huge in the US strategic plan; the PI not so much, like it or not. Some messages are said with marginal tact, but maybe valid nonetheless.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost;1501650]Based on your British spellings I had assumed you were from the mother country.[/QUOTE]You mean the correct spellings, yeah? ;) No matter the nationality a tasty bird is a tasty bird. Same goes for turkey.

Over the years I've had a few Yank Thanksgiving feasts and even a Canucki one. Not bad. Not bad at all.

[QUOTE=Hutsori;1501922]You mean the correct spellings, yeah?[/QUOTE]Let's just say the spellings for those whose keyboards appear to lack the letter z, and rarely can leave an o and r alone without tacking a u in between.

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar;1501810]Ten years ago deep water was thought to be the solution for world oil and then along came the Bakken. With fracking and directional drilling N Dakota produces more oil than most middle eastern countries and by 2017 the IEA states USA will be the top oil producer ahead of Saudi. Off shore oil fields newly discovered almost seem like a monthly event to anyone following the DW driller markets and with time it's very likely the impact of an undeveloped SCS will have negligible economic and strategic effects, for certain, on US politics.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure whether to interpret your post as prescriptive or descriptive / empirical. If your concern is that the U.S. ought to avoid yet another entanglement as the world's policeman, I am with you. But setting aside whether the U.S. should get involved, I think the empirical reality is that we are already heavily involved. Protecting the Philippines is not the primary objective, but our Philippine friends do seem to be offering a welcome, and the welcome may fit with other American concerns.

The significance of oil in the region is not that we need it; it is that other large economies need it, including several (Japan, Korea, etc.) that are close allies of the U.S. We are also concerned with international policy circles to keep China in check, and China's oil dependency is one point of leverage the U.S. is unlikely to ignore. Yes, China and Walmart need each other, but other geo-strategic and economic dynamics may keep the U.S. perpetually concerned with keeping up pressure on China.

In addition, South Asia (especially India) and Southeast Asian countries (led by Indonesia) are among the fastest growing economies in the world. American foreign policy and military strategy are shaped by this reality. So it's not just oil that gets shipped through the South China Sea; lots of other kinds of trade flow through the area as well.

Thirteen of the world's 20 busiest ports are either in East or Southeast Asia, and Singapore ranks second only to Shanghai.

[url]http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2013/ports/[/url]

And clearly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its members see great strategic importance in Southeast Asia:

[url]http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2013/august/new-poll-finds-us-businesses-optimistic-about-growth-opportunities-despit[/url]

[url]http://www.uschamber.com/international/asia/southeastasia[/url]

Furthermore, some analysts predict that by 2030 India will surpass Germany as the fifth largest consumer economy in the world. It's already a large exporter of various products. Indonesia is also on a strong upward economic trajectory, and its primary trading partners are Japan, Singapore, and the United States. Other growing economies in Southeast Asia include Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and, dare we say it, the Philippines.

The largest Islamic country in the world is in Southeast Asia (Indonesia) , and several other populous countries in the area are predominantly Islamic. So although we may not want to get into armed forays in Muslim areas, and we have no great wish to get bogged down in Muslim Mindanao, the U.S. is also unlikely to turn a blind eye to these areas. I think the notion that we can dispense with global security concerns in the area, while an appealing idea, is simply unlikely to materialize.

The U.S. is likely to continue to play its hand in the arena as long as China continues to play hardball with our allies, whether they be Japan, Korea, or the Philippines:

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/28/us-japan-china-idUSBRE9AR0AH20131128[/url]

The Navy's shifting its 50-50 fleet alignment (Pacific to Atlantic) to 60-40 was not an idle gesture. It reflects serious foreign policy. Why should we assume this stance will shrivel in coming years?

[quote=skip kost;1501952]the navy's shifting its 50-50 fleet alignment (pacific to atlantic) to 60-40 was not an idle gesture. it reflects serious foreign policy. why should we assume this stance will shrivel in coming years?[/quote]some of your comments belie the substance of what i was offering. in fact, the one thing i wanted to say was the less than elegant declaration by this manny fellow seemed more accurate than some of the replies to his post. read between the lines as i was suggesting wrt to recent events in the east china sea, n korea etc that the asian "pivot" will likely continue. most of the ports you refer to (i think) are nearer to the east china sea than the pi. so if you are suggesting we need a much larger usn presence in asia, than perhaps it would be in japan or korea. i don't really think that is what you are suggesting, but it is the same vein of logic i am reading in your post.

your verbiage obfurep001es my point about the off shore fields as well. configuring the us policy on the scs fields will not only be dependent on the us wanting to be "top cop" (we will) , it will be dependent on the global oil markets and in particular the n american oil market. much of the strategy is based upon global demand and depletion of oil reserves and there is a plausible argument that fracking in general and n america in particular will have a substantial impact on the global peak oil theory within the decade. yes, i know about the asian economies and the shipping lanes and wall street wants stability etc, etc. so if we decide to forward deploy the 3rd fleet with alot more us debt, then i guess the pi might work. but if we do need another base for those jihadists populating indonesia, or chinese migrating southward, what better place than northern australia which geographically, culturally and politically might make more sense?

as for the mindanao area, we certainly don't need another subic bay to support the pi for smallish operations. in that respect, a larger "footprint" might clearly be counterproductive. generally, just about every scenario throughout se asia will be planned for with smaller, faster and more specialized responses, save china or korea. the us is becoming a debtor nation for china and nobody wants an expensive commerce damaging brawl. ok, maybe a few generals, admirals and defense contractors would like that. but budgets and doctrine will i think increasingly shape strategy toward the "less is more" mentality and to that end we don't need another (big) base in the pi.

Guys, I don't have any experience in the Philippines. I looked at the boards but didn't find what I was searching for. I was actually looking for someplace in the Phlippines with really nice beaches, and also good food, and hiking, swimming- that sort of thing. I chance to meet working girls, and / or non pros at the site would be a fantastic bonus. Anything even remotely similiar to Bali or Phuket in Philippines, or maybe something on a much smaller scale. I know that Manila and Angels are the hot sports for working girls, but I'm putting the priority for the trip in finding a gorgeous beach, and hopefully some friendly ladies for extra fun.

[QUOTE=New Bound;1502517]Guys, I don't have any experience in the Philippines. I looked at the boards but didn't find what I was searching for. I was actually looking for someplace in the Phlippines with really nice beaches, and also good food, and hiking, swimming- that sort of thing. I chance to meet working girls, and / or non pros at the site would be a fantastic bonus. Anything even remotely similiar to Bali or Phuket in Philippines, or maybe something on a much smaller scale. I know that Manila and Angels are the hot sports for working girls, but I'm putting the priority for the trip in finding a gorgeous beach, and hopefully some friendly ladies for extra fun.[/QUOTE]Its possible to find a sexy willing girl at one of the beach destinations but the local girls are usually shy and more conservative and take a little more work for them to stay with you plus they will need to come up with a story to tell their parents.

How much time do you have available in Phil? How much patience do you have to find the right girl on a dating site like dateinasia or Filipina Cupid that will meet your needs prior to your trip?

Even if you click with a girl online it does not guarantee that you will enjoy each others company for a week and sex will be good.

The best thing would be to set up a number of dates with potential girls via a dating site in an area like Manila or Cebu. Then spend a few days meeting and fucking. If you click with one then snatch her up and take her with you to your beach destination.

I like to go to Manila then take the 1hr flight to Puerto Princessa. Honda Bay is nice but if you want a pristine beach and clean clear water then jump a bus and you can get to El Nido in 6hrs. Its worth the hasstle and time.

You should test drive the girl before you take her for a number of days. And if you don't like the dating sites you can find a girl once your feet hit the ground in one of the many places talked about on this site.

Did you stumbled on this site looking for food reviews in Philippines lol.

An interesting video about the newest ships in the US Navy.

[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21f_1385871477[/url]

SANTA RITA, Guam (Nov. 29, 2013) – The littoral combat ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1) , arrived in Guam, the furthest western USA territory, as part of her return transit across the Pacific Ocean, Nov. 29.

While the crew will have time to rest, relax and reset, Freedom will receive fuel and supplies for the next underway period as the ship wraps up a maiden overseas deployment to Southeast Asia that began last March.

[url]http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39975:uss-freedom-visits-guam-while-transiting-pacific&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156[/url]

[quote=pete benetar; 1502117]most of the ports you refer to (i think) are nearer to the east china sea than the pi. so if you are suggesting we need a much larger usn presence in asia, than perhaps it would be in japan or korea. i don't really think that is what you are suggesting, but it is the same vein of logic i am reading in your post.

your verbiage obfurep001es my point about the off shore fields as well. configuring the us policy on the scs fields will not only be dependent on the us wanting to be "top cop" (we will) , it will be dependent on the global oil markets and in particular the n american oil market. much of the strategy is based upon global demand and depletion of oil reserves and there is a plausible argument that fracking in general and n america in particular will have a substantial impact on the global peak oil theory within the decade. yes, i know about the asian economies and the shipping lanes and wall street wants stability etc, etc. so if we decide to forward deploy the 3rd fleet with alot more us debt, then i guess the pi might work. but if we do need another base for those jihadists populating indonesia, or chinese migrating southward, what better place than northern australia which geographically, culturally and politically might make more sense?[/quote]

i'm glad one of us could find a 'vein of logic' in my post. please note i never suggested what the usn 'needs' to do. if i had an intended message, it was simply that the u.s. is likely to continue to act as though it has a strategic interest in the south china sea. regardless how much bakken shale shapes world oil prices and insulates the u.s. from direct interest in scs oil, if our allies and enemies care about scs oil, then we too have a strategic stake in it. most reports suggest that the u.s. has resisted taking sides in the scs territorial disputes, but we also made a concerted effort at recent asean meetings to get member countries to reach agreement on a common set of maritime principles for the scs. why would we invest this diplomatic energy if we don't perceive strategic importance in the area? shipping lanes in the scs appear to be strategically important to our leaders.

of the 20 busiest ports in the website i linked, one is in korea (busan) , one is in the middle east, two are in the u.s., three are in europe, five are in the east china or yellow seas, and eight are in the south china sea or in southeast or southwest asia—and therefore probably sending traffic through the south china sea.

is korea still a viable defense position given apparent threats in the east china and yellow seas? sure. but is it a certainty? who knows? a few years ago i was with a korean friend in seoul watching hundreds of koreans demonstrating outside the american embassy. he observed that, "the u.s. has become our new japan."

is darwin, australia a viable u.s. site, given its location, common language, and prevalence of rule of law? it appears it already is. so you will not find me advocating in any posts for a large u.s. base in the philippine. i did say the philippines is welcoming and we may take advantage of the welcome. are mobile deployment and budget-constrained approaches part of any likely trajectory? of course.

but history has shown that sometimes shit happens. i am not a fan of tightly-coupled foreign policy projections. the idea that we can stake out a likely or preferred set of policy decisions as though our foreign policy apparatus represents a unitary rational actor does not hold up well to the test of history. many interests internal to a country push and pull on the direction of foreign policy. john mccain never saw a potential war he didn't like, and rand paul never saw a foreign incursion he did like. and they are of the same party. other countries with whom we interact, both friend and foe, are subject to similarly divergent interests and voices. the guys with biggest sticks are more likely to get their way, but sometimes shit happens.

inelegance and marginal tact were not the first things that came to mind when i read manny's post: naivete was. but 'verbiage'? ouch.

Tally, thanks for the reply. I will take your advice and go to Puerto Princessa- and take it from there. It should be a lot of fun. I'm taking about six weeks, so plenty of time to meet some babes once I git the ground. I figure I can find hot babes almost anywhere, so I like to focus on finding a fun location, nice beaches, outdoor fun, and food, then work on finding some nice babes from there. I will post a report on my return. I like working girls, but when I have time enjoy the non pro scene. Thanks. NB

[QUOTE=Skip Kost; 1502605]Please note I never suggested what the USN 'needs' to do.

Of the 20 busiest ports in the website I linked, one is in Korea (Busan) , one is in the Middle East, two are in the USA, three are in Europe, five are in the East China or Yellow Seas, and eight are in the South China Sea or in Southeast or Southwest Asia—and therefore probably sending traffic through the South China Sea.

A few years ago I was with a Korean friend in Seoul watching hundreds of Koreans demonstrating outside the American Embassy. He observed that,"The USA has become our new Japan."

But 'verbiage'? Ouch.[/QUOTE]Of course you didn't and that's exactly why I said I don't think that is what you believe. But your comments take some liberty interpreting others so I thought I might point that out for your benefit. And yes, 'verbiage', but don't be distressed as no doubt much of what I spread might be coined in fertilizer terms as well.

Korean nationalism can't seriously be compared to pinoy fervor (which could be resuscitated by opening any us base in the PI) and the closure of Subic decades ago; the threat is much more imminent and too much S Korean wealth would evaporate for any serious movement for the US to leave there. Nationalist fervor is of course not entirely predictable, but a US departure from Korea would be a far, far different scenario for the S Koreans and especially those Koreans who hold the wealth and power.

The SCS, ports, lanes, drilling etc all are red herrings for hawks promoting the military containment strategy. I agree that the "pivot" will put emphasis on this area, but the rationale is BS IMO. Many of those ports and lane traffic in the SCS belong to the Chinese. SCS commerce disruption would be a mutually destructive economic strategy for the Chinese. Or anyone else there.

Oil delivered from the SCS is an almost negligible amount on the world market. Most of the production in the SCS is in uncontested littoral waters anyways. I'm not aware of any significant known reserves in PI waters and there has been very little if any production coming out of SCS deep waters. The amount of production there is such that the rationale for positioning more navy assets is hardly to assure our allies of economic benefits of more oil / NG, but to have more hard assets in place for a bigger show or impression. Back on Bakken which may indeed insulate the US; add also that the demand for SCS fuels will have a lesser impact on the oil markets (even there in SEA) and that may even be encouraged by American or any oil, even LNG, exporters for price support. The oil landscape could seriously look quite different in just a few years from now and the SCS might be equally affected by this.

OTOH, of course, my own verbiage is only opinion and sadly will do little to nitrogenize the compost.

As one who is very interested in the topic I have to say both Pete and Skip have brought forth germane facts and valid views.

What has not been mentioned is credibility. It's certainly less tangible than ports, shipping lanes and oil platforms, but it's so much more important. Whose views are given more credence in capitals around the world? This matters. Deeply. Is the SCS to become a "Chinese lake" or remain open to international transit? Beijing seeks to establish the former and the US seeks to maintain the latter. Credibility is not only important internationally but is pertinent in the domestic sphere. Note the reactions of the Chinese (government controlled) press and (government monitored) public after the US flew two lumbering, no-stealth-whatsover B-52s right through China's new air defence identification zone (ADIZ) for an hour almost immediately after China proclaimed it. Many there have deemed this a national humiliation. Note how Beijing was ridiculed as kuripot (stingy) both at home and abroad for its niggardly donation of $100, 000 to the Philippines for typhoon Yolanda relief. (Yes, China later donated more and even sent a hospital ship, but the damage done by the first impression can't be undone. Of course in its "peaceful rise" China will misstep but it'll learn.)

I strongly disagree with Pete's analysis that Pinoy nationalism is more fervent than Korean. As someone who has worked and lived in both Korea and the Philippines (and the Gulf states) for a long time, though in Korea for much longer, Korean xenophobia and anti-Americanism is much more palpable. I have friends who were Peace Corps workers in Korea in the '70s and '80s and they often mention how Korea was a much friendlier place prior to the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Olympics, but as it developed economically it became a nastier place. Perhaps the Philippines, if and when it becomes more successful, may follow suit, but I personally doubt this will happen. In Korean culture is "han", a word that isn't perfectly translated into English, that roughly means never-to-be-assuaged grudge. Pete is correct that the Koreans would suffer immensely if the US were to withdraw. Much is this is due to Korean suckling Uncle Sucker's teat for too long; it still flies F-4s and F-5s whilst spending billions on national aggrandisement projects.

I also disagree that Korea is the place where the US can monitor and secure the SCS. Firstly, the 7th Fleet has nothing but a few office buildings there; it's anchored in Yokosuka, Japan, about a 4-day sail from the SCS. Secondly, the US military in Japan (and Guam) fulfills a regional role; in the Korea the US military (largely army) is Korea centric.

[QUOTE=Hutsori; 1502860]I strongly disagree with Pete's analysis that Pinoy nationalism is more fervent than Korean. As someone who has worked and lived in both Korea and the Philippines (and the Gulf states) for a long time, though in Korea for much longer, Korean xenophobia and anti-Americanism is much more palpable. I have friends who were Peace Corps workers in Korea in the '70s and '80s and they often mention how Korea was a much friendlier place prior to the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Olympics, but as it developed economically it became a nastier place. Perhaps the Philippines, if and when it becomes more successful, may follow suit, but I personally doubt this will happen. In Korean culture is "han", a word that isn't perfectly translated into English, that roughly means never-to-be-assuaged grudge. Pete is correct that the Koreans would suffer immensely if the US were to withdraw. Much is this is due to Korean suckling Uncle Sucker's teat for too long; it still flies F-4s and F-5s whilst spending billions on national aggrandisement projects.

I also disagree that Korea is the place where the US can monitor and secure the SCS. Firstly, the 7th Fleet has nothing but a few office buildings there; it's anchored in Yokosuka, Japan, about a 4-day sail from the SCS. Secondly, the US military in Japan (and Guam) fulfills a regional role; in the Korea the US military (largely army) is Korea centric.[/QUOTE]My apologies Hutsori for not being clearer on the pinoy vs Korean nationalism bit, but my intent was not to say Koreans were less fervent (they may insanely be so) , only that our good friends at Samsung, Hyundai, Kia et al will be far more effective in controlling this fervor out of self interest than the pinoys. I've been to Korea a few times and know several Koreans stateside so I do understand their culture and their nationalism somewhat. My 16 yo son's mother is half Korean half American courtesy a GI wedding and every time he goes to visit his mother's household he returns home and I hear "Korean this" and "Korean that" for days on end. They are quite an obstinate lot and truth be told, I could care one iota if the whole peninsula fell under Kim Jung-In and his pal Dennis except that my equity portfolios would come crashing down as well.

Below is my comment and I understand that it could have been misconstrued.

"Korean nationalism can't seriously be compared to pinoy fervor (which could be resuscitated by opening any us base in the PI) and the closure of Subic decades ago"

I agree with your point as well about not being able to cover SCS from points north and if the pivot does come to fruition may likely advance assets from the 3rd fleet based in the Puget Sound and place them further south as you suggest. I don't think I actually said we could effectively deal with issues in the SCS from Korea or Japan. My retort is and has been that I personally don't see it as a major strategic region (compared to the real estate about the east sea) vis a vis ports and lanes and such, though bases in the SCS would obviously threaten China with a much more comprehensive containment scenario. SCS bases might also buy more points from the other contestants down there who are neutral or just leaning toward an alliance with us, but that's not a given either as many peoples just don't like cops and now we're back into the rigmarole of USA playing enforcer-in-chief, yet again. I'm a military guy and I like to be circumspect about these things, especially if it's my ass on the line or anywhere near it. But the ramifications of playing the enforcer has other very deep potential downsides which I think most on this MB would agree with. Again, just some more fertilizer for thought.