: Don: The Sandistas were murderous, as were the leftist terrorists in
: Honduras and El Salvador.
: Qx: Can you come up with any evidence of that? Please do post a URL written by some Reagan courtesan. After all, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary concerning El Salvador's real terrorists.Even the New York Times excerpts at this Bell & Howell website for classroom materials on El Salvador. It could be very useful provided that there really are that many school teachers with enough integrity to tell the kids the truth and not just feed to feed kids some parroted reasons for justifying a slaughter. Even the Houston Chronicle (which isn't a favorite of mine)is a bit more realistic than just going by the notion that the liberation struggle in El Salvador was really just a bunch of murderous leftist terrorists. How about the the social element called the rich? In North America the rich have the control they want but in El Salvador and other such places the rich are incredibly violent. You should go to Central America some time and take a few notes from the Center for International Policy with you. Of course, it's business as usual for the big boys.
the argument Don provides seems to be twofold, 1) the FMLN were evil, 2) so were the sandinistas. Both lies of course. You took care of the first one, so let me just add on a note about the second., It is a fact that seven parties from across the political spectrum won seats in teh 1984 Nicaragauan elections, as compared to only 2 parties in America. nicaragua's electoral system allotted equal funds to all parties, regardless of size, thus making it much easier than in America for opposition parties to get onto the ballot. The mainstream media in Nicaragua offered a broader spectrum of opinion than teh American mainstream media. Nicaragua was generally acknowledge d to be the elast repressive of any central American state. You can argue if you want that Nicaragua was less of a democracy than the United States, but that's like arguing that teh sky is not blue. Since the previou sposter merely spoke his opinions, and offered nothing resembling evidence to back them up, I don'rt see that there's much ground on which we can argue with him. Teh facts are plain to anyone with the honesty to take a look.