|
Post by buster on Mar 1, 2021 9:39:32 GMT 8
Karl, Good spotting the two Del Pilar-class frigates of the Philippine Navy. These frigates were previously Hamilton-class high endurance cutters of the US Coast Guard. Early in 2011, the Philippine Navy announced the acquisition of ex-US Coast Guard Hamilton-class high-endurance cutters under the "Ocean-going Escort Vessel" project through the US Excess Defense Article program. Three were acquired. USCGC Hamilton (WHEC-715), renamed BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15), commissioned 14 December 2011 USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716), renamed BRP Ramon Alcaraz (PF-16), commissioned May 2012 USCGC Boutwell (WHEC-719), renamed BRP Andres Bonifacio, commissioned July 2016. The Hamilton-class is a cutter that was in service with U.S. Coast Guard and was designed to perform anti-submarine warfare, with the capability to find, track and destroy enemy submarines. Speaking of submarines, the CCP has an underground submarine base on Hainan Island on the South China Sea. The South China Sea has become a hotspot for military tensions in recent years. Beijing claims almost all of the 3.4 million square kilometres South China Sea, and since 2014 it has built up tiny reefs and sandbars into man-made artificial islands, fortified with missiles, runways and weapons systems - antagonizing regional governments with overlapping claims. The oil reserves in the area are said to rival those of the North Sea. We can expect the CCP keeps a close eye on the comings and goings involving Subic Bay. I would not be at all surprised that "unannounced" visits there and in Manila Bay have occurred from time to time. That sort of thing happens when the doors are left unlocked and the welcome mat put out.
How James Bond'ish this is!
|
|
|
Post by buster on Mar 3, 2020 16:29:49 GMT 8
More photos on Facebook at www.facebook.com/groups/ww2pinas/?ref=searchThough I have some questions. Was a US Flag raised? YES/NO
Did the "Old Flagpole" feature as a part of the ceremony? YES/NO
Were there any veterans who were on Corregidor 2 March 1945 present? YES/NO
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that what happened on Corregidor on 2 March 1945 marked, in any way, the end of WWII in the Philippines. The main force of the Japanese troops on Luzon remain in the mountains, awaiting their pursuit. Much of the central Philippines, still under Japanese control, remaind to be liberated. Negros is yet to be retaken. And Mindanao (April 17). So, it's a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by buster on May 28, 2018 11:19:24 GMT 8
The joke goes that the world is divided into two sorts of people – the sort that divides the world into two sorts of people and those who don’t. Thus, there are two sorts of people who visit Corregidor – firstly, those who go there to study its history closely (the serious “students”), and secondly, those who are essentially two-hour tourists (those who are on day trips, or who are participating in some company-sponsored conferencing.) Actually, calling them two-hour tourists is a bit unfair on my part, but I call them that because they wade only in the shallow end of the historic pool. Some conferences require an overnight stay, and the Corregidor Inn provided the facility. Most “regulars” loved the old Inn, it was quirky, but always it's reasonable pricing allowed serious aficionados to stay a few days at a time – some of us for a week or so. This enabled us to study the island closely. Now that the Inn considers itself upmarket (when you hike a room rate from US$40 to US$100 that's the message you are sending), the laws of unintended consequences apply – particularly for those who want to visit Corregidor for a few days, or even longer? Who can afford a hundred bucks a night? Not I. Maybe not you either. Thus I say that things not looking good for serious students of Corregidor right now. Actually, the word "BAD” applies. Who can throw down a hundred bucks a night, every night, to pursue their research? What students can afford that? Whether the two parties which operate the island intend it or not, their policies are pricing accommodation out of the reach of the very people who bring repeat business. Corregidor needs to be declared a National Park, run for the sake of heritage, because heritage belongs to everyone, not just the elite.
|
|
|
Post by buster on Jun 4, 2013 18:22:17 GMT 8
When it comes to considering the efforts of Bomber Command, one matter which is of prime importance not to overlook was that the bomber offensive was, for a considerable time, the only offensive action which England was capable of taking against Germany. Certainly, after Germany invaded Russia, and England came under pressure from Stalin to open a "second front", the bomber offensive was claimed by England as the only means that it had to render assistance and pin down German personnel on their Home Front. An interesting rule of thumb was that until Stalingrad, the Allies never had a win, whereas after Stalingrad, they never had a loss. It is a rule of thumb, as near enough as good enough, so to speak, but it does go to indicate that it was a necessary campaign and had fulfilled an important purpose.
A full analysis of the respective merits and morality of the aerial campaigns is something that has resulted in the publishing of whole library shelves of books. For all of them, the issue still isn't final.
Churchill may have expressed reservations concerning the campaign, post war, but earlier, during the darker days, he was as supportive of it as anyone could have been. He was not immune from changing his viewpoints in retrospect, particularly when he came to write the history of the war. Ah, the benefits of hindsight! ( "History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it" and “I have not always been wrong. History will bear me out, particularly as I shall write that history myself," are both quotations attributed to WSC.)
|
|
|
Post by buster on Sept 2, 2012 17:50:07 GMT 8
From Asian Journal - the Philippine-American Community Newspaper published in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas & New York. Pinoy netizens oppose Manila Bay reclamation projects
LOS ANGELES – It is almost common knowledge in the Philippines that the Manila Bay is one of the top tourist attractions in the nation’s capital. Tourists and locals alike flock to the bay walk along Roxas Boulevard, to enjoy one of the most legendary sunsets in the world.
In the wake of initiatives to reclaim portions of the bay for possible future infrastructure developments, the Manila Bay has become the epicenter for a broiling dispute between concerned “netizens” and real estate development conglomerates. The term “netizens” refer to the growing population of citizens who advocate their causes using the Internet.
Leading the pack is a group page on Facebook founded on August 24 this year. Named SOS Manila Bay, the group’s banner image carried the words: “Save our Sunset! No to Reclamation of Manila Bay!”
On the other side of the argument is real estate development firm Manila Goldcoast Development Corp. (Goldcoast), and the City Government of Manila. Both parties (the Manila City Government and Goldcoast) have entered into a consortium agreement on the development of this project, signed April 17, 2012.
A history of dispute
The history of this dispute for the reclamation project goes back all the way to 1990. That year, the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), then known as the Public Estates Authority, announced that it was accepting proposals for infrastructure development on the areas to be reclaimed along Manila Bay. Among the firms that applied for this was Elco Development & Construction Corporation (EDCC).
On February 27, 1991, the PRA endorsed the reclamation proposals to the Office of the President, stating that they “approved in principle the proposed Manila Bay reclamation project.”
On March 21, 1991, the PRA issued to EDCC a “Notice of Award to reclaim and develop the Southern Parcel of the Project involving 134 hectares more or less, and the Manila Yacht Club area involving 14 hectares more or less.”
On June 6, 1991, by virtue of a Deed of Assignment, EDCC assigned all its rights and obligations to Manila Goldcoast Development Corp. (Goldcoast), effectively organizing a bigger capitalized corporation that can can handle the responsibilities of the reclamation development project.
The PRA’s Notice of Award was met by staunch opposition from concerned citizens, as well as the City itself. They contested the reclamation initiative, seeking to preserve the remaining accessible portion of the bay along Manila’s business district.
In December 1992, the City Government of Manila enacted Ordinance no. 7777, an ordinance “prohibiting any form of reclamation, from the US Embassy to the Cultural Center of the Philippines.” The Ordninance took effect on January 1993.
In 2007, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim further stressed the importance of Manila Bay when he ordered the removal of restaurants, bars, and bistros that littered the once serene bay walk. Lim’s critics at that time viewed this as a move to antagonize former Mayor Lito Atienza, who was widely viewed as the proponent behind the proliferation of the small businesses along the bay walk.
In a news report by 24 Oras, Mayor Lim said that his sole intention was to preserve the view of the “Manila Bay sunset and the Manila Bay waters.”
A change in decision
However, on May 2011, it seemed that the Manila City Government began humming a different tune. After much lobbying by Goldcoast, the City enacted Ordinance 8233, effectively repealing Ordinance 7777 and practically consenting to the reclamation proposals. Ordinance 8233 seeks to authorize “the City of Manila, through Mayor Lim, to file an application with the Philippine Reclamation Authority to reclaim certain portions of Manila Bay.”
In one fell swoop, the City Council, led by Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso, who is sitting Presiding Officer, overturned a law that was ratified almost two decades ago. Ironically, Mayor Lim, who approved Ordinance 8233, was also one of the original signatories for Ordinance 7777 in 1992.
On July 12, 2011, Goldcoast and the City Government wrote to the PRA, declaring their interest in jointly undertaking the reclamation project with the PRA.
Upon further inspection of Section 3 the consortium agreement, it can be found that the City agreed to a “pooling of resources,” and to “provide funds, services, assets, or a combination thereof” in implementing the project.
Disputed contract
The SOS Manila Bay group has disputed this move by the City Government, saying that “in addition to blocking the view of the sunset from Malate and Ermita, the reclamation will worsen floods, extinguish the tourism area along Roxas Boulevard, destroy the potential of our historic Intramuros, remove 20 vital anchorage berths for ships and most of all, take away from us a waterfront we all love.”
They have further pointed out dubious clauses in the consortium agreement that requires confidentiality from both parties. In Section 9.3 of the agreement, it is stipulates that “none of the parties shall disclose this Agreement or any of its content to any third person” and that both parties are to “maintain all such information in confidence.”
SOS Manila Bay contended that with the City Government being a signatory in the contract, it makes this consortium agreement a government contract. And with the 1987 Constitution being biased towards transparency and public accountability, the group claims that a confidentiality clause should not exist in this contract. With these confidentiality clauses, SOS Manila Bay raised the question on whether or not the Manila City Government is hiding some questionable details to this agreement.
The group goes on to say that proposals which have a broad impact on the community should not be shrouded in secrecy, and should be subject to public discussion which involves experts in the field.
Campaign to rally support
The SOS Manila Bay group started an online signature campaign to rally support from other concerned citizens. Supporters who wish to join the cause will affix their electronic signatures to a letter addressed to Mayor Lim. This letter says that petitioners believe that “no aspect of this scheme will improve the City of Manila in any discernible way – it is all for the profit of a few individuals.”
“We sign to protest this reclamation and prevent further destruction and loss of our heritage.”
Concerned individuals may get in touch with the SOS Manila Bay group through www.facebook.com/savemanilabay, and join the online signature campaign at www.change.org/petitions/s-o-s-manila-bay-save-our-sunset-stop-the-reclamation-of-manila-bay.
|
|
|
Post by buster on Sept 2, 2012 17:24:47 GMT 8
This came to me along with request to post from a few of our friends. It raises some pointed Heritage issues:Please help pass around to get a lot of petitions. Thanks. D
("D" is Doris Ho, of Magsaysay Lines - owners of Sun Cruises.)
______________________________
"Sunset on Manila Bay is a spectacular experience, and is free for all to enjoy. But not for long, if developers have their way.
In 1992, a group called “Manila Goldcoast Development Corp.” lobbied for approval to reclaim the entire Manila Bay waterfront along Roxas Boulevard, between the Cultural Center of the Philippines and the US Embassy. This scheme was challenged by citizens, who fought to preserve the last remaining access to the bay along Manila's historical district. The citizens won. The Manila City Council passed City Ordinance No. 7777, prohibiting reclamation in this area.
However, Goldcoast was, tragically, able to get City Ordinance No. 7777 repealed. In February 2011, City Ordinance No. 8233 reversed the prohibition. A consortium agreement was signed in April 2012 to reclaim the same waterfront along Roxas Boulevard, about 288 hectares of land, even swallowing up the Manila Yacht Club and the Philippine Navy Headquarters.
In addition to blocking the view of the sunset from Malate and Ermita, the reclamation will worsen floods, extinguish the tourism area along Roxas Boulevard, destroy the potential of our historic Intramuros, remove 20 vital anchorage berths for ships and most of all, take away from us a waterfront we all love.
No aspect of this scheme will improve the City of Manila in any discernible way. It is all for the profit of a few individuals.
We must act to protest this reclamation and prevent further destruction and loss of our heritage. We will stop them again.
Sign the petition: www.change.org/petitions/s-o-s-manila-bay-save-our-sunset-stop-the-reclamation-of-manila-bay
Learn more about the issue: www.facebook.com/savemanilabay ______________________________ Typically of anything in Manila politics, there's mud being flung in all directions, and so I have added this, which appeared in the INQUIRER a few months back:MANILA, Philippines—A reclamation project on Manila Bay that has been scuttled since 1991 is back on the table, with Manila executives entering into a consortium agreement to develop 148 hectares of the bay.
The agreement, which the city executives entered into with Manila Goldcoast Development Corp. on April 17, would be the first step to develop into a “business center” the southern parcel of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Reclamation (MCCRRP) North Sector Reclamation Project (NSRP), a copy of the consortium agreement showed.
The project area covers the southern end of Manila Bay in the city, including portions fronting the Manila Yacht Club and the Philippine Navy.
In March 1991, the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), then the Public Estates Authority, actually issued to Goldcoast’s parent company, the Elco Development & Construction Corp., a notice of award allowing the latter to “reclaim and develop” the southern parcel of the MNSRP.
But in 1992, an ordinance was passed prohibiting any reclamation in the area in a bid to preserve the bay. The Office of the President ordered the project deferred.
With Goldcoast’s constant follow-up over the years, and with an executive order in 2006 giving approval powers of reclamation projects back to the PRA, the PRA on April 1 last year finally reaffirmed the 1991 awarding of the project to Goldcoast. The city council also passed Ordinance No. 8233 authorizing Lim to apply for the reclamation with the PRA and effectively repealing the ordinance banning reclamation on the Bay.
The city government only entered into the agreement with Goldcoast on the condition the city be included in the “consortium” undertaking the project and would “be given an equitable share in the reclaimed land.”
Goldcoast will fund and execute the reclamation and provide construction facilities, while the city has agreed to provide utilities, facilitate right of way, and assist in importing or exporting construction tools and even labor.
A management committee will be set up composed of three representatives each from Goldcoast and the city. Sharing of the consortium proceeds would be 70.55 percent for Goldcoast, and 29.45 percent for the city, the agreement showed. On Tuesday, the city council began mulling the passage of a resolution ratifying the agreement, acting on an urgent request from the office of Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim. The issue was referred to the Committee on Laws. ______________________________ Already, as they say in the classics, " the thick plottens!"
|
|
|
Post by buster on Aug 13, 2012 5:05:17 GMT 8
Battery Boy resides beyond all floodlines, and has been EXO's timely line of communication.
|
|
|
Post by buster on Aug 12, 2012 21:35:38 GMT 8
Sorry to quibble, but no, EXO most definitely suffered severely, though he was nowhere nearby. His desire for internet privacy prevents him from discussing the issue, except privately.
|
|
|
Post by buster on Jun 13, 2011 9:40:31 GMT 8
In as much as I think I understand it, the predominant view of why the abandonment of Ft. Wint handed the Japanese a major victory was largely about logistics. WWII was a war determined largely by logistics.
With Corregidor denying the Japanese the Port of Manila, and with Ft. Wint under US control, the Japanese would have found it necessary to 'bring up' all their troops and supplies down from the gulf at Lingayen. This would have made for a long supply route, with the tactical dangers that presented. The route would also pass along highways whose junctions could be defended and whose critical bridges could be blown. Gifting them the port at Subic Bay, by abandonment of Ft Wint, allowed them to start their supply lines hundreds of miles closer to where the action would be.
My compliments to fots2, another superlative effort graces our forum and, we hope, shall earn a permanent place among with his other notable postings in the File Notes series.
|
|
|
Post by buster on Jun 6, 2011 8:30:04 GMT 8
Very nice items indeed, AJ, thanks for the additions.
|
|