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: Constant Reader who wrote (58842)	10/12/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

On the one hand, Ronald Reagan had the power and influence to single-handedly keep Marcos in power, but on the other hand he had no power or influence over his departure. Reagan's support kept Marcos in power from 1983, when the IMF should by its own criteria have withdrawn support, to early 1986. Reagan's withdrawal of support came too late to make any difference, because by the time it happened Marcos was surrounded in his castle, and his troops had all defected. Clear? It seems to me that you overestimate Reagan's personal interest in both the Philippines in general and Marcos in particular and thus overstate his ability to personally influence the direction of both the country and the ruler. The personal friendship between Marcos and Reagan dated back to Reagan's days as governor, and is a matter of record. When Reagan won the election, Imelda Marcos threw a bash that would have made Bacchus blush; the general attitude was "happy days are here again". Reagan took a real and personal interest in Marcos, and would hear no evil; most of his advisors did not take enough interest to try and change his mind, an oversight which came very close to leaving the country in the hands of the communists. Read the book I mentioned earlier; the citations are abundant and authoritative. you appear to be arguing that the United States maintained a singularly harmful activist interventionist foreign policy at the same time it was guilty of not unilaterally acting to correct all of the wrongs committed in an independent nation governed by its own constitution and rule of law. I'm maintaining that US policy toward the Philippines from 1983-86 - I could go back farther than '83, but that was when it became so obvious that only the wilfully blind could fail to see it - was contrary to our own interests, and appeared to be governed more by personal friendship between chief executives than any normal evaluative process. If you think the rule of law had any place in the Philippines under Marcos, you didn't spend much time here. I doubt you've read very widely on the subject either. Do you enjoy having people steal your money? You appear to discount the record compiled by those who engaged in the conversations and made the decisions by recounting hearsay and talk among your circle of acquaintances. I'm recounting public comments made by the President of the United States, who was not among my circle of acquaintances. Some among my circle of acquaintances at the time were in positions that left them quite well informed. One could argue that Marcos lost control because the power elite (people who benefited by his rule) within the Philippines had reached the point that they were less afraid of potential anarchy and collapse of the state than the continuation of an obviously corrupt and increasingly ineffective regime. This is not in itself untrue, though it ignores many potent influences, and ignores the fact that the power elite had practically nothing to do with the actual removal of Marcos. Do you know much about the alterations in elite politics under the Marcos regime? Interesting story, but too long to be of much interest here. Marcos knew how to manage the elite; many of them hated him, none would move against him except Enrile, at the very end, and Ramos, after the lines were drawn. When Enrile staged his coup attempt practically everybody watching could see only two alternatives: either a Marcos dictatorship or an Enrile dictatorship, with either leading very quickly to a communist takeover. The US and Ronald Reagan played a very real part in pushing the country to that grim point, only the unexpected intervention of ordinary Filipinos prevented it from reaching its ugly conclusion.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (58842)	10/12/1999 11:16:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 108807

ROFL! JLA

To: Constant Reader who wrote (58842)	10/13/1999 11:58:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 108807

>>I see. On the one hand, Ronald Reagan had the personal power and influence to single-handedly keep Marcos in power, but on the other hand he had absolutely no power or influence over his departure. This is oddly reminiscent of almost all arguments about Ronald Reagan. His detractors simultaneously paint him as an evil cunning manipulating felon bent on the destruction of the human race, and as a distant disoriented amiable buffoon incapable of uttering a coherent unscripted sentence much less walk and chew gum at the same time. Devastatingly effective. Of course his argument is counter-intuitive. And hey, Reagan had no friends - remember? How many times did he ever meet Marcos? You obviously are no provincial. You just as obviously don't have the advantage of myopia. Some can't see the forest for the trees.