- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Central America

Posted by: Nikhil Jaikumar ( DSA, MA, USA ) on October 18, 1999 at 21:32:39:

In Reply to: Reagan was a fascist. And a homophobe. And a wifebeater. And... posted by Frenchy on October 18, 1999 at 14:37:14:

: : yes, he got rid of those things, didn't he. but at what cost? At the cost of 30,000 dead Nicaraguans; 70,000 dead Salvadorans; 250,000 dead Guatemalans. All the victims of Reagan's plans to make the hemisphere safe for capitalism.

: Actually these things were the result of Castro's policy of exporting his revolution to other Latin countries.

do you ever read what other people write, or maybe look up some history for yourself? The Nicaraguans voted for the Sandinista Front in elections that were universally recognized as free and fair, involving the Sandinistas, religious conservatives, Christian democrats, Marxist-Leninists, and neo-liberals. This made the Saninistas teh legitimate rulers of the land. Reagan chose not to recognize their government, and instead backed a force of terrorists whose open goal was to reinstate the Somozist tyranny. Thee contras were known to murder babies in front of their mothers, rape women in front of their husbands, force peasants to eat their own body parts before killing them, kill random victims to spreda terror...leaving aside their policy of bombing hospitals, clinics and civilain fields in violation of all civilized conventtions. The Contras were sordid murderers, and it's criminal to support peopel liek that.

The salient question is not whether Castro supported the Sandinistas, the Mayan Indians of Guatemala and the FMLN in Salvador. As I recall, teh Soviets also supported the civil rights movement in this country. Does this mean that the civil rights movement was unjustified? A little reason here, please. The salient question is, were the Sandinistas, the FMLN and the Guatemalan left on the right side, or on the wrong side. I think the evidence is pretty clear. The Sandinistas were one of teh few governments in teh region to try empowering the people instead of killing and enslaving them, and were also probably the most democratic. their opponents were a bunch of former secret-police thugs.

In Guatemala, the army and the right-wing Evangelist president killed about 23 times as many people as the geurillas did, according to the UN. The UN is looking into bringing genocide charges against the Guatemalans, teh same government that was supported and installed by teh US. What was teh origin of the Guatemalan war? back in '54, an elected liberal president began nationalizing land that was owned by United Fruit. So Truman sent aid to a renegade general who overthrew teh government, and began a 40-year reign of terror. The Guatemalans were known to burn entire villages to the ground with the people inside.

In El Salvador, as usual, the right wing consisted of notorious death squads who apparently liked to murder priests and nuns as well as peasants.

:His policy backfired and, judging by the disaster's of Pol Pot et al, we got off lightly at 350,000 dead (I'm accepting your figures at face value, only for the sake of this thread. I'm sure you wouldn't use inflated figures provided by Lefties...).

Again, the salient question is, Which side was in the right? if, as seems clear, the Sandinistas and the guerillas in El Salvador and Guatemala were infintely preferable to their opponents, how can you possibly justify supporting the wrong side, and what relevance does it have whoever else was supporting theM?

Also, I wouldn't dwell too long on the subject of genocide if iw ere you. Four of the century's top five genocides, measured by the % of national population killed, were committed by anti-communist right wing regimes, of which three were committed explicitly in the name of capitalism and 'Westernization'. (Indonesians in East Timor, Belgians in the Congo Free State, Germans in Southwest Africa, Italians in Libya [no, Mussolini wasn't a capitalist, but eh certainly was an anti-communist]). Brazil's extermination of 84% of their native population to make way for capitalist development, between 1900 and about 1960, is also noteworthy.

: Let's not forget the Cuban kids suffering from vitmin deficiencies because of his trade embargo,

: Hold on gringo, Canada and the Scandinavian countries and Europe and S. American countries and socialist countries all trade with Cuba. Fidel can't get those things necessary to make life a worker's paradise from any of those other sources? C'mon. Do I look like I fell off the turnip wagon yesterday? The problem lies with socialism, not with Reagan. Remember the Marial Boatlift?

The US makes it difficult for otehr countries to trade with Cuba. Remember Helms/Burton?

: : or the lonely homeless living out their squalid lives on any major American city;

: Take some into your house, or your apartment, or put some in your daddies garage. He'll love you for that, hehehehe

: : or the Chilean dissidents murdered by Reagan's ally;

: Guilt by association....non starter.....

: : or the Iranian civilians shot down by the USS Vincennes.

: ...during a time of war, as you may or may not recall. What would you have done in a similar circumstance?

Erm, the US wasn't at war with Iran. We were neutral in the Iran-Iraq war.

I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. You know all these facts, why are you pretending like you don't?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup