Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (47037)	7/25/1999 4:11:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Taking them one at a time: I can't imagine the Reagan administration (or any other -- except, maybe, Carter's) calling the rotten Marcos election "rotten". To do so would have encouraged ALL parties opposing Marcos. Perhaps. But to come out and publicly approve the results, accuse the cheated parties of committing equal fraud, and suggest that the party which obviously won the election should concede and let the status quo continue was less than becoming in an avowed believer in Democratic processes. Something along the lines of "We cannot interfere in domestic affairs, but we cannot endorse these results", with no official representation at any swearing-in, combined with a "full and frank" private exchange, conveniently leaked, would have done nicely. The swing vote always belongs to the military, and the military was totally dependant on US aid. A strong suggestion that the US was at least neutral would have done a great deal to reduce the probability of force being applied against the opposition An interesting side-story surrounds Sen. Lugar, who headed the observer's mission. I don't have the source on this handy, and I am not 100% sure on the story, but I am fairly sure that credible sources reported extreme pressure being put on Lugar to juggle the mission's report in favor of the Marcos government. Lugar held firm and called a fraud a fraud, inspiring considerable discomfort in DC. I remember seeing him in an interview before he left here, and he was flat out angry. I don't think any believer in Democracy who saw what he saw could have been otherwise. You described the "unarmed moderate opposition" as "the only hope" for the country. Sincere as I know you are, I suggest that those on the armed left and armed right were equally convinced that they were the only hope for the country. I should have said that the moderate opposition was the only hope of avoiding civil war. I'm sure the aftermath of our withdrawing support for the Shah weighed on the president's mind. I don't think continuing support for the Shah would have kept him in power much longer, and I don't think continued American support for Marcos would have kept him in power much longer. We reaped in Iran the seeds we sowed when we let the British con us into bouncing Mossadegh for them, and we reaped here the seeds we sowed when we let Marcos get away with declaring martial law. Sometimes you have to acknowledge reality and move on. I'm not sure what form "standing for democracy" might have taken. The absolute last thing the U.S. wanted to do in the eighties was become party to another civil war in Asia. Which is exactly what we almost did. Marcos came in for an incredible amount of abuse during the '85 campaign; if he had continued in power there would have been a massive crackdown on the moderate opposition (it was being planned when the rug was pulled from under Marcos). The NPA was growing by leaps and bounds, and had already reached a strategic stalemate. The economy was at a dead stop. If Marcos had lasted another 2 years a communist takeover would have been almost inevitable, and US aid would have done little or nothing to help. We would have almost certainly eased Marcos out in favor of an "acceptable" replacement, probably Enrile, but that would have helped not at all. Which would have left us with a choice between massive armed intervention and putting the largest military facilities in the Pacific into hostile hands. Or we could have said "no more aid, no more loans, no more anything until this election is recounted legally and fairly". How many of Marcos' boys do you think would have stuck around once the pork barrel was empty and the generous uncle was clearly not going to refill it? Subic's loss at the time would have been devastating We came within an ace of giving it away on a silver platter. Why do you think the US mission here was so horrified at Reagan's remarks? am saddened that you believe Reagan was a coward and a disgrace. I said the situation was handled in a cowardly and disgraceful fashion. There are times when there is a clear choice between what is right and what is wrong, and between standing by your principles and ignoring them. Sometimes there is a time when a few well chosen words can make a real difference. At those times you either stand firm or you wimp out, and we wimped out. Democracy is not the absence of communism, it is the presence of democracy. If you want to be perceived as a champion of democracy you have to be ready to defend it against threats from either side. Re. cold war combatants who are little better off than before, I would ask that you cite examples. This is another train of thought, and deserves another post. I'll try to find time in a while. It has been thus with every "occupying force" in history. We weren't supposed to be an occupying force, we were supposed to be an ally. We acted like an occupying force, and were eventually perceived as one. Probably inevitable, but true nonetheless. Let's see -- mid July -- the afternoon high should be about 71 degrees, relative humidity, 20 percent and no rain or wind in the foreseeable future Oops... July is rainy season here. Tropical depression hanging off eastern Luzon, sucking the SW monsoon in at 35 knots and pissing down rain. Why the hell else would I be posting on a Sunday afternoon? Typhoons will be in sometime soon....

To: Michael M who wrote (47037)	7/25/1999 5:08:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Re. cold war combatants who are little better off than before, I would ask that you cite examples. I would be glad to comment. Ditto proxies. I will say that the situation we left the South Vietnamese and some Laotians in shamed us. The stay of funding by the congress resulted in the Paris peace accords being a virtual invitation for the communists to roll south. I'm not sure any amount of money would have kept the Communists from rolling south by that time. It ain't easy blowing air into a perforated balloon. How many of the people who disappeared during the anticommunist purges in Latin America, the PI, and many other countries do you think were actually communists, and how many do you think simply had expressed opinions disapproved of by the dictators? Are they not casualties of the Cold War? In this country an entire generation of intelligent, idealistic young people was either driven underground, coopted, or killed, and we are still suffering the consequences today. I suspect that the same situation prevails in many other countries. Many of these people were not Communists, just potential rivals to individuals in power. When you suspend law to conduct a crusade, it is very easy for unprincipled allies to use that crusade to settle scores that have nothing to do with it. What about the money that was lent to sustain the pork barrels of people like Marcos when foreign aid became politically unacceptable? We knew perfectly well that money was being sent to people who were not investing it in any profitable enterprise, and that the government would never be able to honor the guarantees. We kept the pipeline open because without it the regimes would have crumbled, and the people in these countries are still paying it back. Quite a number of billions there, is it really fair to not only impose a dictator on people who don't want him, but expect them to pick up the tab for keeping him in power? A lot of people were forced to take sides in a fight that was not really theirs, and a lot of them suffered badly because of it. The idea of ignoring them when the fight is over seems somehow less than honorable to me.