“We cannot keep what we cannot defend”

Written on Wednesday, August 6th, 2008 at 8:53 am | by benign0

Bencard, makes a really straightforward reminder in this comment; specifically where he says:

in the final analysis, we cannot keep what we cannot defend. laws, rights, fairness, justice, ethics, are mere words and ideas. they have to be enforced. there’s no authority without the backing of obligatory force. that’s why we need a strong, effective law enforcement and defense forces. we need international alliances with countries whose beliefs and practices are compatible with ours.

In societies that are of substance, it is usually crystal clear what approach needs to be taken when dealing with banditry. I think the word Bencard used in a subsequent comment is “subjugate”.

I prefer the word crush.

But then this is the Philippines where even a simple parking ordinance cannot be enforced and where even laws laid out in black and white are considered debatable and subject to over-rule by ocho-ocho politics. So it’s kind of a laugh to note that these bandits are considered by the Philippine Government as an entity that is to be “negotiated” with. That, in effect, (in my simple world at least) legitimises them as a legal entities worthy of being spelled out in letters that make up contracts.

Furthermore;

btw, benigno. let’s not get carried away. “bandits and commie thugs” [referring to how I refered to the MILF and the NPA]. if i remember right, that’s what everybody in the free world called ho chi minh and his cadre of rag-tag, black pajama-clad fighters. against two of the most powerful nations in the world u.s. and france), successively, not to mention about half of the vietnamese people, they prevailed.

… to which I absolutely agree. They are thugs now and relics of the past. But they are a threat nonetheless — specially in a country with a solid and extensive track record of allowing minor annoyances to fester into cancerous blights. Such is a nation of crybabies who also foolishly latch on to old “disputes” that we sat on with our pointed arses for decades.

[As a side note I’d also like to say that on top of our habit of allowing problems to fester, we also famously manage to pervert things like Edsa “revolutions” and even Christmas (check this out).]

In the Philippines, there is “No Parking” but then there is “Strictly No Parking”. Which one’s it gonna be? Maybe the Supreme Court should issue a temporary restraining order on parking ordinances until this “issue” is resolved.

Classy, aren’t we?

Maybe we should re-name the country to Republic of LimpDick.

Our society is an INSULT to the outstanding soldiers we send to battle and the world-class boxing champs we and the rest of the world worship.

============
Join us on Facebook!
Join us on Facebook!

Tags: , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.COM and has once been described as "one of the most enthusiastic hecklers of the politically-passionate" by a respected journalist.

Filed Under National News, Politics, Society

Related Entries:

Comments

14 Responses to ““We cannot keep what we cannot defend””

  1. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 6th, 2008 9:18 am

    benign0,

    You are absolutely correct on all points you’ve posted above, most especially about how our society is, (at times) an insult to the soldiers we send (and let die) to battle.

  2. jojo on August 6th, 2008 10:36 am

    No Parking means “huwag ka mag-park. makisama ka naman.”

    Strictly no Parkng means “pardz. hindi biro ito. mahiya ka naman.”

    P500 Fine for Illegally Parked Vehicles means “tang ina. sabi na walang parking dito!”

  3. Bencard on August 6th, 2008 11:06 pm

    benigno, thanks for amplifying my two-cents worth
    point of view. i’m sure you understand it’s not a call to give up what we own, rather it is an exhortation for our people to fight for it against any force, internal or external, that would seek or threaten to wrest it from us in ways not allowed by our laws.

    peace in mindanao can still be achieved even if we have to prepay for it with our blood. the integrity of our territorial domain, which we now possess, is worth dying for.

  4. cvj on August 6th, 2008 11:52 pm

    peace in mindanao can still be achieved even if we have to prepay for it with our blood. - bencard

    Unless you’re planning to be a balikbayan-Rambo, i suppose you mean the blood of the soldiers that will be sent out to fight.

  5. Bencard on August 7th, 2008 1:49 am

    if an over-60 reserve officer can qualify to be a “balik-bayan rambo”, why not, cvj. i will volunteer for whtever service i can be utilized. how about you, what’s your excuse (assuming you have the guts to risk being separated from your head, and the sincerety of the patriotic posturings that you love to ejaculate)?

  6. benign0 on August 7th, 2008 11:23 am

    Ding, thanks. Soldiers are trained to follow orders — which highlights the gravity of the responsibility placed on the shoulders of the civilian authorities from which those orders ultimately originate.

    Bencard, no problem. I’ll give you a dollar for your two cents anytime (well, most times at least… ;) ).

    i’m sure you understand it’s not a call to give up what we own, rather it is an exhortation for our people to fight for it against any force, internal or external, that would seek or threaten to wrest it from us in ways not allowed by our laws.

    Absolutely. I’m all for a “strong Republic” and I’m all for asserting it. And it should be done the way quiet achievers do it — by working on the BITE first before the bark.

    On another note, there is also something to be said, yet again, about people who prefer to whip out the proverbial electron microscope whenever faced with the concepts that underpin the people-and-events layer that is their comfort zone…

  7. cvj on August 7th, 2008 12:46 pm

    Bencard, i don’t think it’s worth it.

  8. Bencard on August 8th, 2008 3:35 am

    cvj, why am i not surprised by your answer after all the homilies you have been preaching about YOUR country here and elsewhere?

  9. cvj on August 8th, 2008 8:53 am

    Bencard, keeping the Arroyos in power is an objective that’s not worth dying for.

  10. Bencard on August 8th, 2008 9:04 am

    you must be getting old, cvj. who said anything about dying to “keep the arroyos in power”, huh?

  11. cvj on August 8th, 2008 9:26 am

    bencard, i’m not so blind as to not see how this crisis came about. It’s a gambit by the Arroyos to keep power either via Charter Change or, failing that, starting another war. The latter is a very old trick by leaders who want to hang on to power i.e. keep the people busy fighting each other (or with a foreign entity) so they would not focus on the discredited political leadership. Who would want to die for that agenda?

  12. Bencard on August 8th, 2008 9:54 am

    cvj, if the people of the philippines don’t want a charter change, how can pgma effect that simply by devising a “gambit” that leads to “this crisis”. in the first place, this thing you call crisis has been there even before there was a republic. and how can a resumption of the war that the government has been waging since the commonwealth extend her term beyond 2010? who asked you to die to keep gma in power? i know i did not.

  13. J on August 8th, 2008 10:39 am

    I agree with this post totally.

    Indeed, I see no logic in negotiating with the MILF after we have made a deal with MNLF. So what if another rebel group pops out after this deal, will we negotiate with it and make a deal too?

    I give credit to Estrada for being able to capture Abu Bakar. If only the Catholic bishops not interefere, we would not be where we are now with regards to the Bangsamoro dispute.

  14. pumpy on October 27th, 2008 6:45 am

    But you can see similar problems in nearly all societies, industrialized or not! Your own remarks about virtual wealth and the Wall Steet crash is an example of that!

Leave a Reply