Text 12156, 133 rader
Skriven 2014-01-25 22:43:42 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 12155 av Joe Delahaye (38769.fidonews)
Ärende: Crosspost
=================
Hello Joe,

 RN>> I heard about the violence, but I had no back story of the goings-on.
 RN>> Thanks to Pavel, I do now.

JD>This sort of thing happens when a govt does not listen to their
JD>people.

If things were only that simple.  By "their people" do you mean
a vast majority of the people, a small minority of the people, or
what?  How can a small minority represent the vast majority?  By
one individual, or small group of people, saying so?

We do not really know what is going on in the Ukraine.

When a small faction of the people choose not to listen to their
government they may be criminals or they may be patriots.  As such,
what makes you so sure that a small faction of the people represents
a majority of the people?  Especially when the government is chosen
by a majority of the people, rather than a small minority.

JD>Also, when you have two different factions in a country, as I
JD>mentioned elsewhere.

There is always more than one faction in a country.  Even in states
that are clearly anti-democratic, such as North Korea.

Is the government of the Ukraine acting in a responsible manner
towards its own people?  Who is it protecting?  Whose interests
are being protected?  In order to answer those questions, one
question should always be kept in mind -

"What do the people want?"

Any government, in order to be a responsible govenrment, must give
the people what it wants.  Otherwise, that government is despotic and
tyrannical.

JD>It sometimes works for a long time and then some outside source
JD>(Putin in this case) starts things going the wrong way.

In the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos won the presidency and was
strongly supported by the USA for decades.  And then a tragedy
happened.  His chief political opponent, Benigno Aquino, decided
to return to the Philippines, after being exiled from the country
for medical reasons, and was promptly shot to death as he stepped
onto the tarmac at the airport in Manila.  His widow, Corazon
Aquino, blamed Marcos for what happened and issued a challenge
to him to call a "snap election" so she could put an end to his
regime herself.  The idea was so absurd that Marcos called her
bluff, and ran for another term in office, winning the election.
However, winning a free and fair election was not enough for
Marcos win the hearts and minds of a people united under the
banner of "People Power" ...

JD>Another example was here in Canada when DeGaul visited Quebec and
JD>after a speech proclaiming Vive le Quebec Libre, was asked to leave
JD>by the Canadian govt.  In fact, I think it was firmly suggested he
JD>leave ASAP <G>

After the Philippine snap election that Marcos won against Aquino,
US President Ronald Reagan said that allegations of voter fraud
should be discounted as both sides cheated.  Crowds continued to
grow as Marcos refused to leave office, even though it was clear
that their candidate (Corazon Aquino) had lost.  And then a deal
was made.  US President Ronald Reagan made an offer that no dictator
could refuse - Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda could live in
a nice house in Hawaii, rent free, as long as her shoe collection
remained in Manila ...

Some questions come to mind -

Why did the USA give such strong support to Ferdinand Marcos
for decades (Marcos served as president of the Philippines from
1964 to 1986)?

Why did the USA suddenly turn its back on Ferdinand Marcos after
he had clearly won a free and fair election against Corazon Aquino,
who had zero political experience (she was nothing but a housewife)?

After granting what amounts to be political asylun to Ferdinand
Marcos and his wife Imelda, why did the USA renege on the deal and
threaten to deport them to the Philippines after Corazon Aquino
had taken office?

Why was the body of Ferdinand Marcos not immediately returned to
the Philippines for burial, against his families wishes?

If Imelda Marcos was so "guilty" of hoarding shoes, then why was
she never charged or brought to trial?

The body of Ferdinand Marcos was eventually allowed to be buried
in the Philippines.  And Imelda Marcos was eventually allowed to
return to her homeland.  Neither had been convicted of any crime,
but their reputations had been tarnished by the press, given the
amount of misinformation about them that was disseminated by the
powers that be.

Corazon Aquino knew nothing about politics.  She was a housewife,
her husband being the politician.  She had no business in politics,
but her husband's untimely death allowed Marcos' opponents to use
her to gain the sympathy vote needed to topple the government.

Shortly after Corazon Aquino was installed as president, there
was an attempted coup d'etat.  It would have worked, had junior
officers within the military not acted to stop it.  She finished
her term in office, not having accomplished much of anything,
and then she died of cancer, never having forgiven Ferdinand
Marcos for the death of her husband.  Today her son, Benigno
Aquino III, is president of the Philippines.

The people of the Ilocos Norte region in the Philippines views
the late Ferdinand Marcos as a god for the help he gave them during
his years in office.  The central and southern regions were not
nearly as friendly to Marcos, given their interests.

The USA viewed the Philippines as an asset, given its strategic
location during the Cold War.  It did not really matter who was
president, only that whoever was in charge chose to cooperate
with the USA, giving the USA what it wanted.  The former USSR
acted in much the same way with its client states.

Today, Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base are no longer controlled
(or leased) by the USA.  It is a new world, the Cold War having been
discarded for hopefully something better.

Retelling history is so much fun.  Even if the facts may be
somewhat screwed up ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)