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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (59109)	10/14/1999 11:06:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 108807

The Philippines is not the center of the universe and I don't need too advance any further argument since his efforts were already dispatched in toto by Constant Reader. My statements were limited and supported by the memoirs of those who were there. The fact, as related by those who mattered, like Laxalt and Schultz, was that Marcos stayed until Reagan told him it was over. Had Reagan not intervened things may have gone beyond redemption - a bloodbath. History has shown that removing leaders is a delicate business and has consequence. We had already experienced Kennedy's debacle in Vietnam and Carter's failures with Iran and Nicaragua and I'm sure those events were foremost considerations in Reagan's decision-making. In fact, contrary to what some imply, when Reagan made the decision there were still those high in the Administration that advised him to continue to support Marcos. Sure, you can argue with the advantage of hindsight that Reagan supported Marcos too long. But you cannot argue that Reagan kept Marcos in power and then argue that Reagan's withdrawal of support was not consequential in Marcos's decision to leave when he did. Hindsight tells the complete story: the decision was Reagan's and happily for the US and the Philippines, he avoided the fecklessness of the Carter and Kennedy examples.