Talk:U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay

message: I think this is written far too poetically. It gives hints of bias and seems to have been written by someone sentimental for the base. This requires a re-write so it sounds more encyclopedic. Jolb 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the terms of the lease were to be re-negotiated. The new government following the overthrow of Marcos was more nationalistic, and there was an anti-US sentiment (not super-strong, but there). This was around the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, Glasnost, and the realignment of the U.S. military. The terms of the lease were under heated discussion when the volcano erupted, creating a multi-billion dollar cleanup requirement. It is my understanding that the U.S. didn't want to pay the cleanup and the new higher lease.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.22.85 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 1947 base agreement also allowed the Philippine government to increase the lease ammount being paid by the U.S. Government. This ammount was increased since 1984 - but ended up getting doubled over successive years,  something that the U.S. government was not in agreement with. When the final increase and the US government's opposition was tabled in the Philippine senate in 1989, and 1990. The senate (contrary to the expectations of most Filipino politicians) opted for either increase or cease agreement. This coincided with the  local protests at Subic bay and Olongapo  (spear headed by the local mayor, James Gordon - who may have been eyeing the post of the subsequent SBMA chairman - a post that he DID get after some ammount of gun fighting which can be seen on a you tube video). The Pinatubo eruption was simply a coincidence - in fact most troops had returned to teh base a few months after the Pinatubo eruption. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is particularly interesting in light of the 2014 defence agreement between USA and Philippines. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: I found this interesting, but was not sure where to put (in a reduced form, not as a blockquote) in the article:
:The sprawling naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines, once America’s largest overseas military installation, never had a sewage treatment plant; instead, wastewater was dumped directly into the bay. In 1992, the General Accounting Office (predecessor of today’s Government Accountability Office) estimated that the cost of cleaning up the facility, along with Clark Air Base to the north, "could approach Superfund proportions." The 1991 eruption of the Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo exposed these shortcomings: the volcano sent thousands fleeing to the bases for safety, and after just months of living there, hundreds came down with asbestosis and other ailments likely caused by military toxins. But when Manila demanded compensation, Washington balked, claiming, justifiably, that the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the two countries cleared it of any responsibility for the base once it left. Washington’s attitude, says Sheridan, was that "fighting the Cold War was a shared responsibility—we did our part by providing a protective umbrella, and they provided the land." Though local nonprofits and members of the Filipino government continue to press the United States for aid, observers say there is almost no chance that Manila will ever see a penny in compensation.
That's from this Washington Monthly article.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution 

message: Found this article while reading the Philippines & Asian Report:
*
Granted I understand that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, but this is something to keep an eye on. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential re-opening