: : : No, you seem to still be refusing to accept that they had a free and fair election there in 1984, and the Sandinistas won.
: : I do accept that. What you don't seem to grasp is that those who went to the barricades with the Ortega boys were cut out of the loop after Samoza was thrown out. That was the origin of the Contras; former Sandanistas.
: Your 'acceptance' obviates your whole argument. If they did indeed win a free and fair election, as you just conceded, then they were the legitimate rulers of the land. Regardless of your personal views about them, if they were the free choice of teh Nicaraguan people, as you just admitted, you have no right to try and subvert or oppose them. Any attempt to overthrow them would be interfering iwth the Nicaraguans' right to choose their own leaders. Isn't that what representative democracy is? Or are you not a fan of democracy?
This is like saying that if after Clinton had won his first election and had machinegunned all Republican Representatives he'd still be a duly constituted leader of a nation. Actually, to make a closer parallel, I'd say if after Clinton's first election he had machinegunned his own Democrats...
: You can't have it both ways, Frenchy. If the Sandinistas were democratically elected, then we had no right to try and overthrow them. I mean, would it be OK if the Nicaraguans tried to overthrow President Bush? Would that be OK? No, because America chose him, and so they have no right to tell us who our leaders should be. If not, why is it all right for us to try and overthrow the legitimately elected government of another country?
Sometimes seeing the forest is difficult because you can't see anything but trees. Your saying that it's all right for a ruler to rule for as long as he wants, once he takes power. Exhibit A; Castro. Exhibit B; Mao. Exhibit C; Pol Pot. If your democracy is nothing more than a dance to the ballot box every four years with savagery between those elections, you can keep them. Thanks all the same.
: In repsonse to your second 'point', the Sandinistas didn't force anyone out of power. They actually ruled in a coalition with some radical conservatives for several years, till teh conservatives voluntarily dropped out. Afterward, they made a broad colaition with the Catholic Church.
Yeah, and that explains why the leaders of the Contras were former Sandanistas. Makes sense to me. The Catholic Church in many S and C American countries are proponents of Liberation Theology, you'd expect them to hitch their star to the Communist wagon, wouldn't you?
: : : :The Sandanistas, the ones that made it to power, used the Fidel Castro model;
: : : Evidently not; they held free elections immediately, they took the side of religion, and they didn't execute anyone after taking power; in fact, they issued an amnesty for ex-National Guard members who hadn't been guilty of individual crimes, saying 'we won't punish anyone for belonging to a criminal organization'.
: : Yeah, that's why former Contras are being wacked today.
: Ah, but they aren't. Nicaragua didn't execute anyone, not even the hated National Guard, let alone Contra soldiers. Although many of them probably do deserve the death penalty for what they did, Nicaragua doesn't have the death penalty. And your statement is particularly silly in light of the fact that the Sandinistas have little pwoer today; Nicaragua is being run by an extreme right-wing, capitalist neo-fascist with close ties to the United States (Arnoldo Aleman). His concern for his peopel was wonderfully demonstrated after the floods there last year.
Concern for the people of those nations have never been high on the list of 'things to do'. The majority population are indigenous people, squat, brown, and agricultural types. The rulers are the decendants of the Conquistadors. Just read their last names.
The killings of the former Contras may not be on the front pages, but nevertheless their taking place.
: :Castro probably made the same offer to his former colleages too.
: Actually, Castro was honest from the beginning about his desire to execute traitors....
Actually Castro used his followers until they were no longer needed. That's the model the Sandanistas used. Unfortunately, the US was willing to give aid and support in accordance w/ the Bolland Amendment, or at least one of the versions of it.
: : : : use whoever will support you until you gain power, then liquidate them to consolidate that power.
: : : Your self-delusion amazes me. The Sandinistas didn't 'liquidate' anyone, if by 'liquidate' you mean 'kill'. It's typical of your conservative doublespeak to use euphemisims like 'liquidate'. Why not just say 'kill'?
: : I was trying to be ironic. 'Liquidate' was a favorite Soviet euphemism to mean murder. Read 'Darkness at Noon'.
: Right, whatever you say. First of all, the Sandinsitas had little to do with teh Soviets, at least in that regard.
Yup, which clearly explains their source of weapons.
Second of all, the Soviets were far surpassed by peopel liek the GErmans and Belgians in their willingness to murder.
Sure, everyone's heard about the vast complex of Belgian's Gulags.
Third of all, I have little interest in reading that book. Why don't you read some good socialist or Communist literature? Brecht, for example, or Sartre, or Greene?
I've read some Brecht and even saw one of his plays. I don't happen to like him. Sarte? Isn't he a bit pessimistic? Greene? To Liberal.
: : : The Sandinistas didn't 'kill' or 'repress' anyone after seixzing pwoer in 1979, nor after winning the elections in 1984.
: : Whatever you say boss.
: ....says Frenchy, who ahsn't bothered to actually read anything so that he can know teh facts for himself.
: : : :Where do you think the Contra's came from? The Contra's were led by former Sandanistas.
: : : Wrong again. They were led by former National Guard members. The National Guard, in case you haven't read any Nicaraguan history, was the army and secret police of the dictator Somoza, infamous throughout the world for their horrible tortures and indiscriminate murder of dissidents.
Some, yes, but not all.
: : Not really any more or less infamous than most of the current and past leaders in that part of the world.
: Nonsense. Somoza was one of the few leaders anywhere in the world who fed political prisoners to jaguars in his private zoo. Or trained wild animals to bite off teh genitals of prisoners.
Uhhh, I wonder if you could give me a reference here. Sounds interesting. Seriously, I'd like a source for this.
: : That's how politics is played there.
: Have you ever talked to any Latin Americans, Frenchy? Never mind, I'm sure you haven't.
A former girl-friend was a Nicaraugan. Raised there. Her brother and mom and sister and Grandmother all lived over in Daly City. They made pretty good Cheese Rellenos. Nice people. No way in hell they were going back either. Just like most people who come here, eh Jack?
: : Remember Che? He was glorified by the Liberals here.
: I'm not a Liberal, but Iw ould still glorify him, and why not? He deserves glorification. Do you glorify St. Augustine?
So you glorify murderers. That's nice.
: : : : Only thing is they didn't wait around to get a slug in the back of the neck.
: : : Yeah, like all those 30,000 murdered by the Contras, most of them innocent women and children.....too bad.
: : LLLLOOOOOOLLLLLLL!!!! And you tell me, ahhh, forget it.
: You know, soem sympathy for the victims of your right-wing terrorism would be appropriate. If you're going to advocate a philosophy taht kill gross millions of people, the least you coudl do is at least soberly accept responsibility for its victims. You may be callous and cruel, but you don';t ahve to be so obvious about it. At least have the decency to recognize the victims of your favorite leaders and then to extend them an apology. I guess Capitalism means never having to say you're sorry.
You know what's really funny? What's really funny is that you don't see the part of your guys in the tragedy. You seem so surprised, shocked, that people would actually defend themselves against themselves against the sort of Utopia that you and your kind promise. You somehow can't seem to make the connection between intent and outcome. For some reason you and your present day travellers won't make, can't make, the same mistakes as those in the past made. Imputing atrocities that were committed in other countries by foreign soldiers at the orders of their leaders to the leaders of this country is also a nice piece of propaganda.
: : : : India; Is that a socialist success story? Hmmmm. To bad their oppressing the Tamils.
: : : Try reading up on a little geography. The Tamils are being 'oppressed' over in Sri Lanka, across teh Palk Strait- and even there, teh discrimination is afirly minor, used mostly as an excuse for teh LTTE terrorists to fuel their war against the Socialist Republic. The Tamils are one of the largest ethnolinguistic groups in India, totalling 60 or 70 million, and our state is one of the most developed. The state is ruled by a "Tamil Pride" type party, which is one of India's most influential regional parties. My ethnicity is Tamil. SO you would do well to read up a bit before discussing this with me.
: : OK, I admit it, I took a shot in the dark. Let me read up on that.
: Is anything you say ever any different?
Not that much different than your knowledge of Catholicism.
: : : :And the Pakistanis may also have a differing opinion from yours.
: : : YEs, so do the Sikh terrorists who make a hobby out of blowing up planes and buses.
: : : :But at least they've got nukes, which they can afford becuase the per capita income is a whopping $1,491.00 per year. I imagine when the literacy rate climbs above it's present 52% though the citizens of that country may have some questions about that sort of spending.
: : : They have questions right now- incidentally the Communists were the only major party to condemn the nuclear testing. Indians may not be on avergae as literate as Americans, but they certainly care more about their government and politics; electiosn over there actually attract more than half the electorate. Teh difference is that over there they actually have a choice as to who to vote for- religious fundamentalists, liberals, communists, Stalinists, socialists, social democrats, etc.
: : That may be true, but if the result is a fragmented parliment that can't get anything done (think Italy here) what has been accomplished?
: that's what we call 'democracy'. You might want to look that up.
Seriously, it's been decades since the Brits left and the numbers I read about India aren't that great. It's still a third-world nation despite its 'democracy'. Why is factionalism a good thing?
: : So how do you get anything to work when you've got a guy like Mao who promised his people the moon? Not only Mao, all the other Communist/Socialists; Castro, etc, etc. The best policy is not to trust socialist pie in the sky schemes.
: So despair is better than hope, huh?
Despair? Are you crazy? Despair for whom? If you really wanted to help people out of despair you'd haul ass back to India as soon as you get finish school and try to develop that country; that's where you'll find real despair. You have more potential power to make a real contribution to the country you seem to love by doing that. Promising material thing s that you can't possibly deliver is not a sign of 'hope'; it's hype.
Personally I don't think you'll do anything like that because that would require real sacrifice. You come from a land of despair and now live in a land of hope. I may not know much, but I know that.