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: Zoltan! who wrote (58931)	10/13/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

As for Marcos, you make many leaps of faith. Name one. you refuse to give Reagan any credit for what he eventually did: Reagan eased Marcos out of office You really don't get it, do you? By the time Reagan made up his mind, it was over, fini, tapos na. If he had made his comments after the stolen election, they would have meant something. If he'd made them two days earlier they'd have meant something. As it was, they were meaningless. The record makes it clear that there was a strong probability that Marcos would have stayed and fought had he not been offered asylum. What record are you talking about? Have you read any of the books that were written about the uprising; any detailed chronologies? Marcos couldn't have fought in any meaningful way; he had nothing to fight with. His troops in the field had all defected; his air force was shooting at him, his palace guards were slipping out of uniform and hopping the wall. Certainly more people would have died. Mainly the Marcoses and their inner circle. I feel more mild about it now - one of his daughters is actually an acquaintance - but at the time I wouldn't have minded. Not too many others would have either.