Talk:U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay

Issues of Rape, Etc.

I know there have been TONS of issues with the US control of prostitutes and what not in Subic Bay. It was an area for a lot of discontent and closure of the base. The US maintained a military hospital in the mountain in which prostitutes would be forcibly taken if they were thought the have an STD (but the soldiers would not be taken). Also - there was a lot of issues with American born wed-locked children and what not. Rape was of course another big issue. I think there was something like 32,000 kids born to American servicemen who were stuck in Subic bay. Someone should write on this if they can find the sources - I know there are some documentaries and stuff. This is a very important aspect of this base - this article is way to NPOV and glorifies the base as all good.

Also - there is the current issue of the marine being given 30 years for rape in Subic bay ( a landmark case ) that happened in Dec of 2006.

---

I would like others who would like to add this to this article to be mindful of Point of View conflicts that may arise from adding the alleged rape to this article. Rather I suggest that a new article be created if one wants to posted something regardin the alleged rape.

Possible connection with Ramsey ransom note

If you read the entirety of this page,

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T6JAFL0B6GFBRE9PQ/p2

you will see that there's a spirited controversy over whether the initials S.B.T.C. stand for Subic Bay Training Center.

Can anyone add some information about this to the article, one way or the other?

Closure

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)

• Can someone tell me what "dependents" means in the context of this article? Thanks. --64.5.88.54 23:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dependents mean wifes and children of the Military personel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.7.196 (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military Bases Agreement of 1947 provided for a lease of 99 years, yet the U.S. was forced to leave in 1991. When was the lease shortened? Drutt (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is particularly interesting in light of the 2014 defence agreement between USA and Philippines. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pollution

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)

Potential re-opening

Found this article while reading the Philippines & Asian Report:

• DJ Yap; Marlon Ramos; Robert Gonzaga; Tonette Orejas (29 April 2011). "VFA allows US presence". Inquirer. Retrieved 4 May 2011. Olongapo City Mayor James Gordon Jr. said he was confident that a "dual economy" could exist in Subic.

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)