: : : 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,
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Yes, I do. For instance, this from "Deconstructing the Left" by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Chapter Three; Cuba Then, Nicaragua Now.
"Long ago, Castro constructed a Soviet mini-state in Cuba, purging the last vestiges of its freedom and submerging Cuban society in a long totalitarian night. At the same time, he made himself a global agent of Soviet Imperialism and Cuba a Soviet base. Far from hiding his imperialist zeal, Castro expressed it as publicly and enthusiastically in supporting the Red Army's re-conquest of Czechoslovakia in 1968 as he does now in applauding its genocidal aggression in Afghanistan. But his greatest service to Soviet power has been in providing a mercenary for expansion in far-flung places like Angola and Ethiopia, where his troops make possible a sadistic Marxist rule that has caused famine and suffering on a vast human scale.
Now, put this together with the fact that in programmatic statements both public and private and in declarations both informal and official, the Sandanista rulers of Nicaragua have proclaimed Castro and his Cuba to be their revolutionary model. Totalitarianism is the aim of the current Nicaraguan regime, not its last resort. Which is why men like Eden Pastora, the guerilla hero of the anti-Somoza rebellion, and anti-Samoza political leaders like Alfonso Robelo and Arturo Cruz are now exiled leaders of the Contras. Since Cuba is the model for the Sandanistas and their aim is a Communist state (and- make no mistake- their wish for a Communist juggernaut throughout the hemisphere), it is ludicrous to contend that the U.S. support for anti-Communist forces is driving them in a totalitarian direction."
I dunno, it makes sense to me.
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.
Yet you seem content to support an ideology that has led to, well you should know the litany by now, right?
Your welcome to stick with Stalin Lenin Mao etc. I'll stick w/ Ronald Reagan.
: 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.
LOL! Soviets and civil rights! You guys must have writers that come up with these gems.
Does this mean that the civil rights movement was unjustified?
Personally, I think that the civil rights movement brought about probably as many good things as bad things. Care to justify Affirmative Action? Bussing? Quotas?
My favorite though is women in the military.
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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Yeah, that's the same tune that Castro sang too.
their opponents were a bunch of former secret-police thugs.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Unfortunately sometimes you got to fight fire w/ fire.
: In Guatemala, the army and the right-wing Evangelist president killed about 23 times as many people as the geurillas did, according to the UN.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$OH!! Well, why didn't you say so! The UN! If ever there was a non-political organization in this world, it's the U (gag) N.
The UN is looking into bringing genocide charges against the Guatemalans, teh same government that was supported and installed by teh US. What was teh origin of the Guatemalan war? back in '54, an elected liberal president began nationalizing land that was owned by United Fruit. So Truman sent aid to a renegade general who overthrew teh government, and began a 40-year reign of terror. The Guatemalans were known to burn entire villages to the ground with the people inside.
Look, there are some aspects of this country's history that are not things to be proud of. I'll grant you that. This was probably one of them, assuming that the facts are as you state them. You care to name a country without similar incidents' in it's past?
Countries do not abide by the morals that individuals grant towards each other. No country does. Never have, never will.
: In El Salvador, as usual, the right wing consisted of notorious death squads who apparently liked to murder priests and nuns as well as peasants.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Yup, and those priests and nuns were supporters of Liberation Theology. Dance with the Devil, get the horn.
: :His policy backfired and, judging by the disaster's of Pol Pot et al, we got off lightly at 350,000 dead (I'm accepting your figures at face value, only for the sake of this thread. I'm sure you wouldn't use inflated figures provided by Lefties...).
: Again, the salient question is, Which side was in the right? if, as seems clear, the Sandinistas and the guerillas in El Salvador and Guatemala were infintely preferable to their opponents, how can you possibly justify supporting the wrong side, and what relevance does it have whoever else was supporting theM?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Sorry old chap, I think the right side was the side that took on Castro and his proxies. Can't really see how much more clear that can be.
: Also, I wouldn't dwell too long on the subject of genocide if iw ere you. Four of the century's top five genocides, measured by the % of national population killed, were committed by anti-communist right wing regimes, of which three were committed explicitly in the name of capitalism and 'Westernization'. (Indonesians in East Timor, Belgians in the Congo Free State, Germans in Southwest Africa, Italians in Libya [no, Mussolini wasn't a capitalist, but eh certainly was an anti-communist]). Brazil's extermination of 84% of their native population to make way for capitalist development, between 1900 and about 1960, is also noteworthy.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"...as a percentage of total population..."? I'll assume that you know the figures better than I do.
So tell me, how many, total, have died in the purges of Russia? The ones of China? The one by Pol Pot? N. Korea?
Just curious; How many died in the Congo Free States? In SW Africa? E. Timor?
: : Let's not forget the Cuban kids suffering from vitmin deficiencies because of his trade embargo,
: : Hold on gringo, Canada and the Scandinavian countries and Europe and S. American countries and socialist countries all trade with Cuba. Fidel can't get those things necessary to make life a worker's paradise from any of those other sources? C'mon. Do I look like I fell off the turnip wagon yesterday? The problem lies with socialism, not with Reagan. Remember the Marial Boatlift?
: The US makes it difficult for otehr countries to trade with Cuba. Remember Helms/Burton?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$The US can't even stop it's own citizens from going to Cuba to help out with the sugar cane harvest. But it can somehow control the Scandinavian countries? C'mon, cut me some slack. Turn down the hyperbole, it's hurting my hearing.
: : : 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.
Flash! "The Vinennes was operating in the area to protect ships in the area, together with the frigates USS Elmer Montgomery and USS John H. Sides. Due to increasing tensions in the area (May 17 1987 an Iraqi Mirage attacked the USS Stark) all aircraft in the area had to monitor 121.5 MHz (International Air Defense-IAD radio frequency). At about the time the Airbus took off, the radar picked up a brief IFF mode 2 response, which led to the mistaken identification of the Airbus as a hostile F-14 aircraft. The USS Vincennes issued 7 challenges to the Miliatary Air Distress (MAD) frequency 243 MHz, addressed to 'Iranian aircraft', 'Iranian fighter' or 'Iranian F-14'. These messages were followed by three challenges on the IAD. A number of AEGIS radar operators misread the displays and reported that the incoming plane was descending with an increasing speed. This fact, and the fact that the aircraft didn't respond to the challenges led to the decision to launch two missles against the perceived hostile target."
OK, I should've said that the Vincennes was operating in a war zone and that one American ship, the Stark, had already suffered an attack by an Iraqi Mirage.
: I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. You know all these facts, why are you pretending like you don't?