Time to stop the open funding of terrorism!

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Look at the bolded statement. A man that obviously has SOME intelligence cant be attempting to argue a subject that he knows so little about. Read up and then talk to me.

The Phillipines has backslid a great deal from where it was a few years ago ... just as Zimbabwe and Haiti have.

The U.S. helped it become free and democratic... their backsliding is their own doing.

Any other nitpicks?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The Phillipines has backslid a great deal from where it was a few years ago ... just as Zimbabwe and Haiti have.

The U.S. helped it become free and democratic... their backsliding is their own doing.

Any other nitpicks?

The phillipino economy is actually going into a really good phase-and its not US support that is the catalyst but rather korean mostly.

What the US did with Marcos there was criminal.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The phillipino economy is actually going into a really good phase-and its not US support that is the catalyst but rather korean mostly.

What the US did with Marcos there was criminal.

No it wasn't.

The Phillipines was in grave danger of being forcibly taken over by murderous communists. We did what was necessary to prevent that from happening ... and when that threat subsided ... we helped The Phillipines to become a democracy.

We employed similar startegies in South Korea, Taiwan, El Salvador, Chile, and Nicaragua ... fighting the greater evil first ... then resolving the lesser evil second.

Again, don't confuse strategies with objectives.

Back to the original question ... any other nitpicks in that list of 44 countries whom we've helped with our lives and our wealth?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

No it wasn't.

The Phillipines was in grave danger of being forcibly taken over by murderous communists. We did what was necessary to prevent that from happening ... and when that threat subsided ... we helped The Phillipines to become a democracy.

Again, don't confuse strategies with objectives.

thats bull****. you really do need to read up on your history.

The US exploited the phillipines with its puppet leader Marcos for thirty years. Marcos and the US investors got rich, the people stayed poor and the US Navy had a vital strategic base in Southeast Asia to protect its financial and political interest. The poor people of the Phillipines were only free to starve under the US supported oppressive rule.

The US ONLY allowed Marcos to come down when the region became less vital to the overall plan and when Anti Marcos sentiment became intolerable after the Aquino assassination or rather, CIA sanctioned HIT.

Again, you are too smart to argue a subject you know so little about.

[Seattleallstar]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

thats bull****. you really do need to read up on your history.

The US exploited the phillipines with its puppet leader Marcos for thirty years. Marcos and the US investors got rich, the people stayed poor and the US Navy had a vital strategic base in Southeast Asia to protect its financial and political interest. The poor people of the Phillipines were only free to starve under the US supported oppressive rule.

The US ONLY allowed Marcos to come down when the region became less vital to the overall plan and when Anti Marcos sentiment became intolerable after the Aquino assassination or rather, CIA sanctioned HIT.

Again, you are too smart to argue a subject you know so little about.

Philippines was better off having alot of US infleunces, ever since Clinton had them leave. Its been worse

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

Philippines was better off having alot of US infleunces, ever since Clinton had them leave. Its been worse

Better off for whom? The middle to wealthy? most definitely! The majority that were poor?

The arrival of other foreign investors has begun a renewed period of growth for the overall economy. research shows that the poverty line is lower.

[Seattleallstar]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Better off for whom? The middle to wealthy? most definitely! The majority that were poor?

The arrival of other foreign investors has begun a renewed period of growth for the overall economy. research shows that the poverty line is lower.

Better off for everyone, look at the sorry situation the Philippines is in now

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The arrival of other foreign investors has begun a renewed period of growth for the overall economy. research shows that the poverty line is lower.

You mentioned Korea as a heavy investor in The Phillipines ... by which I presume you mean South Korea ...

... but did you stop to think about how and why South Korea became as free and wealthy as it is today? Do you think that The Phillipines would be benefiting from Korean investment if the enitre Korean peninsula had been taken over by the communists?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

thats bull****. you really do need to read up on your history.

The US exploited the phillipines with its puppet leader Marcos for thirty years. Marcos and the US investors got rich, the people stayed poor and the US Navy had a vital strategic base in Southeast Asia to protect its financial and political interest. The poor people of the Phillipines were only free to starve under the US supported oppressive rule.

The US ONLY allowed Marcos to come down when the region became less vital to the overall plan and when Anti Marcos sentiment became intolerable after the Aquino assassination or rather, CIA sanctioned HIT.

Again, you are too smart to argue a subject you know so little about.

Sorry ... my edit to my previous post didn't show up in time for you to see it first. Please go back and read it.

In any case ... would you have preferred a communist takeover ... in the Phillipines or anywhere else ... at a time when the Soviet intention was brutal world domination?

Now ... back to the other 43 countries ... any other nitpick?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

No it wasn't.

The Phillipines was in grave danger of being forcibly taken over by murderous communists. We did what was necessary to prevent that from happening ... and when that threat subsided ... we helped The Phillipines to become a democracy.

We employed similar startegies in South Korea, Taiwan, El Salvador, Chile, and Nicaragua ... fighting the greater evil first ... then resolving the lesser evil second.

Again, don't confuse strategies with objectives.

Back to the original question ... any other nitpicks in that list of 44 countries whom we've helped with our lives and our wealth?

You lump all these countries in as if the intentions, motives and results of each one were at all similar. it shows a very narrow understanding.

You really want to use Nicaragua or El Salvador?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You lump all these countries in as if the intentions, motives and results of each one were at all similar. it shows a very narrow understanding.

You really want to use Nicaragua or El Salvador?

Absolutely ... both were on the verge of a totalitarian communist takeover.

We repelled those threats ... and then helped establish freedom and democracy.

You seem to be obsessed with the minutiae of process ... and don't seem to consider end results to be important.

[Downthestretch55]

Does anyone remember Iran-Contra...Oliver North?
Oh yeah! Democracy at work!
Reagan's near impeachment, anyone?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Absolutely ... both were on the verge of a totalitarian communist takeover.

We repelled those threats ... and then helped establish freedom and democracy.

You seem to be obsessed with the minutiae of process ... and don't seem to consider end results to be important.

"minutiae of process" is great when you are talking about mere lives that arent your own.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

"minutiae of process" is great when you are talking about mere lives that arent your own.

Would there be more and better lives today in those countries if the communists had taken over?