Time to stop the open funding of terrorism!

[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.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

More utter nonsense.

You haven't the slightest idea who I am ... or how I reach my conclusions.

When others were linking to loopy-loony leftist websites ... I recommended that they take a look at what Dr. Sowell had to say as well.

For your information ... I earned a Ph.D in Economics in the very same year that Dr. Sowell did (1968) ... even though he's about 12 years older than I ... so where did you get the coc-kamamie notion that he did anything to shape my views?

Dr. Sowell and I just happen to share the same belief in individual freedom ... which we reached completely independent of one another.

Your pomposity is greatly disproportionate to your knowledge.

You are correct. I do not know who you are. But I read your posts. This is my feeling based on your posts. Am I wrong?

Then why the heck are you so stuck on Sowell? Because he is that gadfly that perfectly fits your reactionary ideas?
And when you put up a site for everyone to read; Dont go to the lunatic fringe part of the cyberworld just because you think someone else has. I never said you were not knowlegable. People can gather all the factoids they want. Its what you do with all the data. And how one chooses what data is relevant and sound. And what signficant information one CHOOSES TO LEAVE OUT because it just does not fit your notions.
That is backwards kind sir. See I can be nice.

ANd you have a very good idea why "the strong black family" in the 1950's did not have the prosperity that Caucasian populations had. You just dont like the most probable explaination. Thats why you dont answer it.

Almost done here... Individuals can be extraordinarly bright immoral monsters... I think you would agree to that. So go back and read some of your hatred and absolute simplification of tough problems.

And finally, I can almost guarantee my educational background was everybit as rigorous as yours if not more so (if that is how you choose to play this game). My education continues though. Its never done. And I will freely admit that. That is why I come to this board to read the horse posts. There are a heck of a lot of people who live the game. I know they know more than I.

[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

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 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.

[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 pgardn

You are correct. I do not know who you are. But I read your posts. This is my feeling based on your posts. Am I wrong?

Then why the heck are you so stuck on Sowell? Because he is that gadfly that perfectly fits your reactionary ideas?
And when you put up a site for everyone to read; Dont go to the lunatic fringe part of the cyberworld just because you think someone else has. I never said you were not knowlegable. People can gather all the factoids they want. Its what you do with all the data. And how one chooses what data is relevant and sound. And what signficant information one CHOOSES TO LEAVE OUT because it just does not fit your notions.
That is backwards kind sir. See I can be nice.

ANd you have a very good idea why "the strong black family" in the 1950's did not have the prosperity that Caucasian populations had. You just dont like the most probable explaination. Thats why you dont answer it.

Almost done here... Individuals can be extraordinarly bright immoral monsters... I think you would agree to that. So go back and read some of your hatred and absolute simplification of tough problems.

And finally, I can almost guarantee my educational background was everybit as rigorous as yours if not more so (if that is how you choose to play this game). My education continues though. Its never done. And I will freely admit that. That is why I come to this board to read the horse posts. There are a heck of a lot of people who live the game. I know they know more than I.

Nothing you say makes the least bit of sense ...

... either in the context of this thread ... or in the context of anything you or I have previously posted.

You make sweeping generalizations ... never failing to attribute motives to others ... never address the specifics of other posters' remarks ... and you're obsessed by a bogeyman-filled world of "reactionaries" and "bigots" and "hatred" which exists only in your fantasies.

You make it less and less worthwhile to respond to you with each successive post.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Nothing you say makes the least bit of sense ...

... either in the context of this thread ... or in the context of anything you or I have previously posted.

You make sweeping generalizations ... never failing to attribute motives to others ... never address the specifics of other posters' remarks ... and you're obsessed by a bogeyman-filled world of "reactionaries" and "bigots" which exists only in your fantasies.

You make it less and less worthwhile to respond to you with each successive post.

Kind of like the boogeyman-filled world of "leftists" and "terrorists" aiming to blow up every street corner?

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.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Kind of like the boogeyman-filled world of "leftists" and "terrorists" aiming to blow up every street corner?

"Leftist" is a perfectly benign political description ... just as "rightist" and "centrist" are ... so why would use of it upset you?

As to "terrorists" ... we see the results of their handiwork on a daily basis. What word would you apply to people who murder innocent women and children ... who are also their countrymen and co-religionists ... just to win political power?

[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

[Downthestretch55]

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

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?

[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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

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

Totally untrue.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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?

Korea was a victory (not total victory but a moderate success) that the US can and should be proud of.

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?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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

Certainly more if not better.