NationStates Jolt Archive

The Reagan Phenomena
Posted by Noam Chomsky at June 10, 2004 11:25 AM
I believe this is the first such extravaganza in the US. ...

There was something similar after the JFK assassination, but of course the assassination of a living president is quite different. I don't recall anything else remotely similar, perhaps since FDR, in the midst of a war, and of course he really was a significant figure, whatever one's judgment of him. Reagan is another story: mostly a PR creation in the first place, and massively so in recent years.

During his years in office, Reagan was not particularly popular. Gallup just published poll figures comparing him during office with other presidents. His average ratings during his years in office were below Kennedy, Johnson, Bush I, and Clinton; above Nixon, Ford, Carter. This is averages during their terms in office. By 1992 he was ranked just next to Nixon as the most unpopular living ex-president. Since then there has been an immense PR campaign to convert him into a revered and historic figure, if not semi-divine, and it's doubtless had an effect,

So true, the end of the Cold War has become mythologized, rather, it was Internal Pressures that caused the end of the Soviet Union, and as everyone remembers: The attempted coup was really the final nail in the coffin. 'Reagan's Legacy' as it is now fondly spoken of in country clubs around America (due to the great 'Reaganomics' ((Definition Below)) - Is nothing more than fantasy.

Reaganomics:
Reverse Robin-Hood:
Essentially, steal from the poor, give to the rich. Enacted by a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium.

Tax Collector: That's ok, Mr. Trump, you can go, we'll just go shake down that hobo over there.
Trump: God, I LOVE Reaganomics!

Reagan was mostly just a myth

So true, the end of the Cold War has become mythologized, rather, it was Internal Pressures that caused the end of the Soviet Union, and as everyone remembers: The attempted coup was really the final nail in the coffin. 'Reagan's Legacy' as it is now fondly spoken of in country clubs around America (due to the great 'Reaganomics' ((Definition Below)) - Is nothing more than fantasy.

Reaganomics:
Reverse Robin-Hood:
Essentially, steal from the poor, give to the rich. Enacted by a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium.

Tax Collector: That's ok, Mr. Trump, you can go, we'll just go shake down that hobo over there.
Trump: God, I LOVE Reaganomics!

No, Reagan was no myth, and he fought socialism, and did not steal from the poor. Check the facts ;).

Reagan was mostly just a myth

In the right place at the right time, with the right criminal administration at his side.

No, Reagan was no myth, and he fought socialism, and did not steal from the poor. Check the facts ;).

Please, offer me some facts, as all you seem to do is spew forth quotes from Bush speeches and cry about how mistreated Israel is. Reagan's dead and hes in hell for his crimes in Central America. Face it. And please draw a differential between Socialism and Communism, it really makes your argument look stupid if you consider them the same thing. Most countries in Western Europe are socialist.

Reaganomics:
Reverse Robin-Hood:
Essentially, steal from the poor, give to the rich. Enacted by a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium.

Tax Collector: That's ok, Mr. Trump, you can go, we'll just go shake down that hobo over there.
Trump: God, I LOVE Reaganomics!

ironically called voodoo econmics by bush's FATHER

ironically called voodoo econmics by bush's FATHER
hehe

Sweet Jesus, Noam Chomsky has a blog now? Man, I'm glad someone brought this to my attention.

Test Post
Posted by Noam Chomsky at June 11, 11:51AM

Test

Good to see he's still only human...

Does no one have any respect for the dead anymore?

Yay Reagan :rolleyes:

Does no one have any respect for the dead anymore?

Well I have respect for the dead that fell at the hands of Reagan due to his terrorist Wars in Central America - though you never saw any of them being hero worshipped with an overblown funeral.

Anyway, I'm a Christian, and I can safely say Reagan is paying for his sins right now.

Reagan's dead and hes in hell for his crimes in Central America.
. . . I can safely say Reagan is paying for his sins right now.
Well, my, my, my, my. This should settle the Atheist/Christian/Buddhist/Holy Followers of the Eternally Flaming Potatoe Salad debates for good now. It seems that God has deigned to enter the forum hisself.
So, God can you do me any favors while your here, or will you merely confirm who and who isn't in hell at this present eternity?
I hope that you aren't mean to me God because it would hurt my self-esteem most dearly were I to be sent to spend the rest of this eternity being eternally flamed.
One last question, though, God why have you taken the form of a mortal with no discernable wit or charm whose capacity to display his own ignorance is only rivaled by his capacity to endlessly make fun of people who can't fight back?
I suppose that might fit with the style of the Almighty, but surely there are more worthy targets of your righteous one-liners and unending arrogance than the dead.
However, God why do you have nothing better to do than deface the graves of former presidents? Perhaps next you shall order us to crap upon JFK's eternal flame.

I hate to insult the dead.. but Reagan was an ass.

Well, my, my, my, my. This should settle the Atheist/Christian/Buddhist/Holy Followers of the Eternally Flaming Potatoe Salad debates for good now. It seems that God has deigned to enter the forum hisself.
So, God can you do me any favors while your here, or will you merely confirm who and who isn't in hell at this present eternity?
I hope that you aren't mean to me God because it would hurt my self-esteem most dearly were I to be sent to spend the rest of this eternity being eternally flamed.
One last question, though, God why have you taken the form of a mortal with no discernable wit or charm whose capacity to display his own ignorance is only rivaled by his capacity to endlessly make fun of people who can't fight back?
I suppose that might fit with the style of the Almighty, but surely there are more worthy targets of your righteous one-liners and unending arrogance than the dead.
However, God why do you have nothing better to do than deface the graves of former presidents? Perhaps next you shall order us to crap upon JFK's eternal flame.

Indeed, using the word, 'God' and highlighting it makes you appear extremely witty. Though of course, this is sarcasm. I tolerate people like you on a humerous level. You offer no counter-arguments and merely try to please others with your total lack of intellect that makes you appear as a 'bufoon' type character.

Okay, I'm going to do something you haven't, and thats offer a counter argument.

I never made any pretenses about being 'God' I merely stated that through my beliefs as a Christian, and the Christian ethics such as compassion and forgiveness; I believed that Reagan would be rotting in Hell right now due to his complete contradiction of these Christian ethics. His illegal and despicable Wars upon Central America are an example of this - which resulted in the brutal murders of thousands (though Carter can be blamed for some of these situations as well). The man was also a hypocrite, like most Republicans he hid behind facade of Religion to protect his methods (which at times - such as the support for ex-National Guard leaders, were barbaric). Therefore it is my presumption that he is in Hell now.

Indeed, using the word, 'God' and highlighting it makes you appear extremely witty. Though of course, this is sarcasm. I tolerate people like you on a humerous level. You offer no counter-arguments and merely try to please others with your total lack of intellect that makes you appear as a 'bufoon' type character.
Wha-wha-what?! You mean that your not God! My life is meaningless and awash with the void of nothingness! I had religion, true genuine religion, for about 20-30 minutes, and now you have ripped it away from me!
Aside, you offered no arguments to which I could propose counter-arguments.
You said Reagan was "a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium", provided a rather inane veiw of reagonomics that has nothing to do with facts(Facts, bon ami, are those little things that relate to specific events), and made general, broad, and unsubstantiated claims. I find it rather ironic that you would then accuse me of being the "bufoon" (Note, that it is spelled with two f's not one) when you seem to possess a rather unique dearth of mental capacity.

Okay, I'm going to do something you haven't, and thats offer a counter argument.
Whew, so we go from a fact-free, republican-bashing, ranting IdiotCon to a sarcastic appraisal to counter arguments. Well, thats you for you.

I never made any pretenses about being 'God'
No, you just happen to possess intimate knowledge of the unknowable aspects of the universe, as well as being the final arbitrater of men's souls.

I merely stated that through my beliefs as a Christian, and the Christian ethics such as compassion and forgiveness; I believed that Reagan would be rotting in Hell right now due to his complete contradiction of these Christian ethics.
So, once again, you are the final arbitrater of Reagan's (and I suppose my) Final Destination. I am scared now. And you didn't say that you "believed that Reagan would be rotting in Hell." You said "Reagan's dead and hes in hell for his crimes in Central America."
That sounds like a definitive statement of fact, does it not?

His illegal and despicable Wars upon Central America are an example of this - which resulted in the brutal murders of thousands (though Carter can be blamed for some of these situations as well). The man was also a hypocrite, like most Republicans he hid behind facade of Religion to protect his methods (which at times - such as the support for ex-National Guard leaders, were barbaric). Therefore it is my presumption that he is in Hell now.
Once again, my boy, you simply make broad, generic, unsubstantiated, unclarified, and nigh unintelligable statements and expect me to swallow them as fact (Hmm, sounds rather like someone I know of, oh yeah God). How about some research or other effort to back up for your claims.

Of course, I don't hold any of this against you. It isn't your fault that you were dropped on your head as a baby.

Wha-wha-what?! You mean that your not God! My life is meaningless and awash with the void of nothingness! I had religion, true genuine religion, for about 20-30 minutes, and now you have ripped it away from me!

You should take up a career in comedy!

Aside, you offered no arguments to which I could propose counter-arguments.
You said Reagan was "a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium", provided a rather inane veiw of reagonomics that has nothing to do with facts

Apart from the little *fact* it didn't work? Why don't you ask some Economists about it? I certainly have, including my brother, lecturers at Warwick University and the works of several distinguished Economic Authors.

(Facts, bon ami, are those little things that relate to specific events), and made general, broad, and unsubstantiated claims. I find it rather ironic that you would then accuse me of being the "bufoon" (Note, that it is spelled with two f's not one) when you seem to possess a rather unique dearth of mental capacity.

Oh and to point out a grammar mistake, when you are listing reasons using commas, the last reason (always noticeable with an 'and') should not possess a comma after the 'and'. Sorry to dissapoint you there, but you should really brush up on your grammar.

Whew, so we go from a fact-free, republican-bashing, ranting IdiotCon to a sarcastic appraisal to counter arguments. Well, thats you for you.

I can't really comment on this as there were no points made, although you seem to consider me a 'Republican Basher', which I most certainly am!

No, you just happen to possess intimate knowledge of the unknowable aspects of the universe, as well as being the final arbitrater of men's souls.

If you proposed a theory to me and said, "In the future we will be able to achieve speed of light velocities on spacecraft", would I then reply, "HAHAH YOU THINK YOU KNOW THE FUTURE!!!!!!!" It's called your own beliefs pal and the arguments based around the unknown are usually based on them, get used to it.

So, once again, you are the final arbitrater of Reagan's (and I suppose my) Final Destination. I am scared now. And you didn't say that you "believed that Reagan would be rotting in Hell." You said "Reagan's dead and hes in hell for his crimes in Central America."
That sounds like a definitive statement of fact, does it not?

Nope, its based on my beliefs. Anyone with half... Or maybe even a quarter of a brain can work out that it is theoretically impossible to work out whether somebody is in hell or not. As it is theoretically impossible to work out whether there is actually a hell. It's all based around beliefs.

Once again, my boy, you simply make broad, generic, unsubstantiated, unclarified, and nigh unintelligable statements and expect me to swallow them as fact (Hmm, sounds rather like someone I know of, oh yeah God). How about some research or other effort to back up for your claims.

I suggest you do some research on the Nicaraguan conflicts during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. I'm sure you'll be pleasently surprised at what your 'oh so noble' Government has been up to.

Of course, I don't hold any of this against you. It isn't your fault that you were dropped on your head as a baby.
Ahh, the flame, the response of the person who cannot coherently argue their point of view, and thus has to resort to personal insults.

Aside, you offered no arguments to which I could propose counter-arguments.
You said Reagan was "a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium", provided a rather inane veiw of reagonomics that has nothing to do with facts(Facts, bon ami, are those little things that relate to specific events.

Very well, since you claim to 'know' a great deal about 'the facts', perhaps you would be willing to share your 'facts' on Reaganomics?

Very well, since you claim to 'know' a great deal about 'the facts', perhaps you would be willing to share your 'facts' on Reaganomics?

Exactly.

Very well, since you claim to 'know' a great deal about 'the facts', perhaps you would be willing to share your 'facts' on Reaganomics?
reagan was the grandfather of the class war and when Clinton got in he caused the biggest surplus in world history by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% but when Bush was appointed he resurrected voodoo economics and brought back recessions that only serve the rich who never do anygthing but suck the blood of the overall economy

No, Reagan was no myth, and he fought socialism, and did not steal from the poor. Check the facts ;).

under President Reagan in the 1980s, those in the top 5% increased their income more than five times faster than the bottom 20%.


From: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook28jun28,0,6519294.column?coll=ny-top-headlines

I'd suggest YOU check the facts ;)

Cut it out, both of you. This discussion has degenerated into a pointless exchange of pointing out grammar mistakes, slander, and essentially nothing that relates to the main reason this topic was created. Since there is no way to prove whether or not god exists, it is a moot point. It is all centralized around beliefs. You two taunting each other, however, is not going to produce anything other than getting this thread locked.

Apart from the little *fact* it didn't work? Why don't you ask some Economists about it? I certainly have, including my brother, lecturers at Warwick University and the works of several distinguished Economic Authors.
I would, but it is your job to provide the foundation for your claims. Every statement must be backed up by facts, facts which you have yet to produce. Why not give me some economic numbers, or at least the names of these economists and the places where their views were published.
You proposed the issue, it is your job to convince me of it. So far, you have failed miserably.

Oh and to point out a grammar mistake, when you are listing reasons using commas, the last reason (always noticeable with an 'and') should not possess a comma after the 'and'. Sorry to dissapoint you there, but you should really brush up on your grammar.
So says the man who spells disappoint with two 's's and one 'p', but, now we are just getting nitpickity and pointlessly snippy.

I can't really comment on this as there were no points made, although you seem to consider me a 'Republican Basher', which I most certainly am!
Er, yes? I wasn't expecting a confession there, for once you've actually said something I didn't expect, congratulations! Give yourself a cookie!

If you proposed a theory to me and said, "In the future we will be able to achieve speed of light velocities on spacecraft", would I then reply, "HAHAH YOU THINK YOU KNOW THE FUTURE!!!!!!!" It's called your own beliefs pal and the arguments based around the unknown are usually based on them, get used to it.
If I said, definitively, that we will acheive the speed of light, and that it will be discovered by Bob Carmike in the year 2034, you would laugh me out of the room. Saying that you believe Reagan is in Hell and saying that he is at this very moment paying for his sins in Hell are two entirely different things.

Nope, its based on my beliefs. Anyone with half... Or maybe even a quarter of a brain can work out that it is theoretically impossible to work out whether somebody is in hell or not. As it is theoretically impossible to work out whether there is actually a hell. It's all based around beliefs.
Excepting the fact that no religion holds that it is the role of mortals do determine where they go. I was raised in a strongly christian home and can tell you that this God you so revere would be the only one who could truly judge the purity of a man's soul. To feel otherwise is a sign of perverse narcissism that so inflicts those of the religious set.

I suggest you do some research on the Nicaraguan conflicts during the Carter and Reagan Administrations. I'm sure you'll be pleasently surprised at what your 'oh so noble' Government has been up to.
Considering the fact that you are proposing the idea, it is your resonsibility to point to specific examples and problems in those years.
Further, you are straying off topic, we are not discussing the Carter years. Those were completely screwed up, and I won't disagree with you there.
Finally, I never said the government was noble. No government is ever truly "noble." If one was noble, I would want nothing to do with it. Government is not a place for noblility or honor, but is a place for the success of that government's people to be protected with military and police action.

Ahh, the flame, the response of the person who cannot coherently argue their point of view, and thus has to resort to personal insults.
Personal insults to cover up a weak argument. That sounds familiar, but what I can't think of is from where, hm . . .
Oh, yes now I remember:
a senile puppet in the 80's in the height of his delirium
with your total lack of intellect that makes you appear as a 'bufoon' type character.
But don't worry, Nazi Weaponized Virus, your lack of consistency is one of the many flaws that make you so intellectually interesting.

Nazi Weaponized Virus, great minds think alike. ;)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349211

Hajekistan, cut it out, your just flaming. NWV, don't bother to respond to him.

Does no one have any respect for the dead anymore?

Evidentally not... but, I guess that's a little better than a president who doesn't have respect for the living. 4 years and 20,849 deaths later, President Reagan finally addressed the issue of AIDS.

20,849 people died before our fearless leader decided to mutter one solitary word. Absolutely pathetic.

Well, I, for one, know that I am a supreme being capable of judging the souls of the dead, and I as Lord and Master of the Realm, do hereby proclaim that Ronald Reagan is currently being toasted to a medium-well consistency in the deepest pits of Hell (Political Sector, pit 13).

But really, he was a terrible president. He slashed social spending, gave a massive tax cut to the super-wealthy, and deregulated industries faster than I can bitch about it (which, by the way, is very fast). He also ignored AIDS for several years and was horrifically callous towards the poor. I guess the Great Communicator's actions speak a lot louder than his words.

Sup Mentho. Hey! you stole that from my sig!

Nazi Weaponized Virus, great minds think alike. ;)

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349211

Indeed.

Good to see some people with rational ideas and reasoning on this forum :)

Hajekistan, cut it out, your just flaming. NWV, don't bother to respond to him.

Don't worry.

He hasn't addressed any real points so I won't bother. He justified the terrorist War on Nicaragua and other Central American Countries by saying that 'No Government is ever noble' (which, by his logic, obviously means that they have to go and murder people, or actively fund, arm and provide safe haven for murderers).

So far he has picked up on spelling mistakes and the fact I believe Reagan is in hell. Which he clearly (being a right wing nutcase) doesn't approve of as it is an echo of free speech.

For god sakes people he dead give him some respect. But I do think he was one of the greatest presidents ever.

He hasn't addressed any real points so I won't bother. He justified the terrorist War on Nicaragua and other Central American Countries by saying that 'No Government is ever noble' (which, by his logic, obviously means that they have to go and murder people, or actively fund, arm and provide safe haven for murderers).
Your points list is detailed below, so I don't need to comment there.
Further, you have yet to point out what the terrorist war involved and how much Reagan had too do with it. All I have asked for is a couple of reputable sources to back your beliefs up.
Finally, I never justified murder, and you have yet to say what murders/murderers you are talking about. What I meant by no government ever being noble was the fact that I don't expect government to be nice and fluffy, I exxpect it to be ruthless in the pursuit of its citizens welfare. If that means waxing a couple of "commies," then so be it.

So far he has picked up on spelling mistakes and the fact I believe Reagan is in hell. Which he clearly (being a right wing nutcase) doesn't approve of as it is an echo of free speech.
So far you have picked on my grammar mistakes and the fact that I don't believe you when you say that Reagan is in hell.
Further, 'tis not the right wing nutcases going after your right to speak of your religion, thats the left wing nutcases (such as the ACLU).
Also, you have made four "points:"

Reagan is in Hell paying for his sins (Your first batch of posts here purports that. Only after I started picking at this argument did you swich tracks to your belief that Reagan is in Hell, and then you complained that I countered you on that)
Reagonomics was bad, and that this theory is purported by several economists (Yet you have not named one of the economists or where they were published)
I am a "bufoon" (Sounds suspiciously like a flame)
Reagan was involved with Nicurauguan atrocities (Yet you have not provided a single shred of proof or a specific incidence.)

I'm not saying that you are inherently wrong becuase I disagree with you (ala the Vatican). I'm merely requesting that you back up your arguments with specific facts, examples, etc. You have to back up your claims to produce a solid argument.
It seems people really hate being called on their lack of facts.

Does no one have any respect for the dead anymore?

Respect is earned, not given.

Respect is earned, not given.
reagan earned our contempt

Your points list is detailed below, so I don't need to comment there.
Further, you have yet to point out what the terrorist war involved and how much Reagan had too do with it. All I have asked for is a couple of reputable sources to back your beliefs up.

You don't know about the Support of the National Guard in Nicaragua (who were harboured in America under Jimmy Carter) - Or the Iran-Contra affair? Have you been living under a rock?

Finally, I never justified murder, and you have yet to say what murders/murderers you are talking about. What I meant by no government ever being noble was the fact that I don't expect government to be nice and fluffy, I exxpect it to be ruthless in the pursuit of its citizens welfare. If that means waxing a couple of "commies," then so be it.

Then you do justify murder? You just contradicted yourself there.

So far you have picked on my grammar mistakes and the fact that I don't believe you when you say that Reagan is in hell.

You don't believe me? Well, you can't please everyone as they say.
Further, 'tis not the right wing nutcases going after your right to speak of your religion, thats the left wing nutcases (such as the ACLU).

I can't really comment on right to free speech in America (as I haven't researched that topic thoroughlly enough) - though I find it fascinating that people still debate about the 'ethics' of burning a flag. And living in Europe - I can say that all the major curbings of civil liberties have corresponded at a time when a Conservative Government was in power.



Reagan is in Hell paying for his sins (Your first batch of posts here purports that. Only after I started picking at this argument did you swich tracks to your belief that Reagan is in Hell, and then you complained that I countered you on that)

No, you picked up on a techincallity. I said 'Reagan is in hell' - which mirrored my own beliefs that he was. You don't pre-empt every sentence that concerns your own beliefs with 'By the way this is my own belief' - it's just not practical.

Reagonomics was bad, and that this theory is purported by several economists (Yet you have not named one of the economists or where they were published)

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312005326/qid=1092812944/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-8314560-6565456 (A book needed for an economics degree - or more specifically, the microeconomics module within the degree).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896081427/qid=1092812944/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-8314560-6565456 (Another one useful to have in writing a thesis on Free Enterprise in America at degree level - you are taught that Reaganomics is not viable in economic terms in University, you are taught that this is Economic fact and those who suggest otherwise are blending it ((economics)) with Politics).



Reagan was involved with Nicurauguan atrocities (Yet you have not provided a single shred of proof or a specific incidence.)


Haha, how naive can you get?

Lets explain it again!

Reagan specifically approved the training, funding and arming of Anti-Sadinista Rebels (Contras) in Honduras, The Contras waged War on the Sadinistas from Honduras - while the CIA provided assistance, The crimes of The Contras ranged from mass rape to torture and mass murder - as clearly represented in the correspondence they had with American CIA Operatives in Honduras - which of course was laid back to Reagan through Casey. There was no effort made to talk about the 'morals' or 'ethics' of creating a group such as The Contras, simply because The Revolution of The Sadinistas against the brutal Somozas did not tie in with US Interests. Ironically the Sadnistas were actually making conserable efforts to deal with large issues in Nicaragua such as Land Ownership and The Public Sector (Health e.t.c) The World Bank comented that its projects were "extraordinarily successful in Nicaragua in some sectors, better than anywhere else in the world." and in 1983, The Inter-American Development Bank concluded that "Nicaragua has made noteworthy progress in the social sector, which is laying the basis for long-term socio-economic development."


In 1984 Congress voted to end all economic and military aid given to The Contras, but Reagan countered by soliciting contributions from supportive Businessmen and Countries sympathetic to the US terror campaign. Most notably the President also used Monetary Assets from Arms deals with Iran to fund his terror project, this of course was handled through the CIA and adds further evidence that Casey supported this action (when he claimed he didn't), In 1986 The news of the 'Iran Contra' Affair broke out, to International Condemnation to the point where the US became one of the first nations to be criticized of 'International Terrorism' by the ICJ, A subsequent Resolution calling on all states to abide by International Law was vetoed by The US, and a year later, by The US and Israel.

But what is most notable is the role of John Negroponte as a US Ambassador to Nicaragua. His role was to completely destroy any resistance to US Imperialistic aims for Nicaragua. This does not bode well for what he has in mind for Iraq.

Sources:
Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html

The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America James Mahoney

David and Goliath: The U.S. War Against Nicaragua Kent Norsworthy

Blood of the Innocent: Victims of the Contras' War in Nicaragua Teofilo Cabestrero

Various other Sources, Mostly Primary; relative to Correspondence between The CIA in Honduras and The Pentagon.


I'm not saying that you are inherently wrong becuase I disagree with you (ala the Vatican). I'm merely requesting that you back up your arguments with specific facts, examples, etc. You have to back up your claims to produce a solid argument.

Now, provide me with facts to counter the argument I made about Nicaragua. Provide a coherent response that isn't riddled with flame-baiting - and state your sources as I did.

For god sakes people he dead give him some respect. But I do think he was one of the greatest presidents ever.

Read my above post.

See NWV, was that so hard. All I asked was that you started your argument with that one post. Just point out your gripes, provide back-up, and now you have points and a good argument to go alongside it all.

Now, with actual opposition I can go about formulating a rebuttal. For the most part I'll let you have the last word and will only address the Contra Scandal and Reagonomics; religion, justification of murder, civil liberties, and who, exactly, is in Hell, there really is no point in barking about those topics now.
OK, I like money, so I will play with the Reagonomics angle first:
The easiest part: Your first sited resource does not, in fact, prove that Reagonomics was bad. It seems that he felt it to be a mixed bag, somethings got better, others got worse.
Your second source
Why Reaganomics and Keynesian Economics Failed by James E. Sawyer (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312005326/qid%3D1092812944/ref%3Dsr%5F8%5Fxs%5Fap%5Fi1%5Fxgl/026-8696820-9974863) is a book, as such I can't comment on it directly (not having it on hand and all).
The same, regrettably, goes for your third source Reaganomics: Rhetoric Vs. Reality*by Frank Ackerman (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896081427/qid%3D1092812944/ref%3Dsr%5F8%5Fxs%5Fap%5Fi1%5Fxgl/026-2676922-7496415). However, Frank Ackerman doesn't ever seem to propose real solutions, but merely seems to enjoy tearing down his fellow economists and Republican administrations. Not that that is a bad thing, I can respect a destructive instinct in a man, but he also rejects the U.S. plan of Cost-Benefit Analysis, while proposing no alternative. Like this debate with Kerry Smith (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=7696)
I know this isn't a complete analysis of Reagonomics, but such broad alterations in the U.S. budget demand more time for me to work on them.

reagan was the grandfather of the class war and when Clinton got in he caused the biggest surplus in world history by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% but when Bush was appointed he resurrected voodoo economics and brought back recessions that only serve the rich who never do anygthing but suck the blood of the overall economy


Hey dimwit, when Clinton came into office he signed the largest tax increase in history. It wasn't just the top 1% that had the increase.

Here's some very slightly off-topic fun: Chomskybot (http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl)

Furthermore, the earlier discussion of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the descriptive power of the base component can be defined in such a way as to impose nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that a descriptively adequate grammar suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. However, this assumption is not correct, since the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Of course, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction does not readily tolerate the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34).

Well, I, for one, know that I am a supreme being capable of judging the souls of the dead, and I as Lord and Master of the Realm, do hereby proclaim that Ronald Reagan is currently being toasted to a medium-well consistency in the deepest pits of Hell (Political Sector, pit 13).

But really, he was a terrible president. He slashed social spending, gave a massive tax cut to the super-wealthy, and deregulated industries faster than I can bitch about it (which, by the way, is very fast). He also ignored AIDS for several years and was horrifically callous towards the poor. I guess the Great Communicator's actions speak a lot louder than his words.

I didn't think it was Reagan's responsibility to deal with AIDs. Was he an AIDs researcher. It was a disease that many people got which was a direct result of their actions. It was their own fault. Sure many people got it from tainted blood products, those people were innocent victims.

I never thought any president should have to deal with that issue. That is why we have a surgeon general.

BTW Where was he horrifically callous towards the poor. Can you cite an example. Social spending really cause more harm then good. Why work if you can be supported by the government.

Social spending really cause more harm then good. Why work if you can be supported by the government.

Ahhh the myth of the welfare queens. :rolleyes:

Sorry but the amount of people that have used it for a short spell are far more then the abusers. Your argument is on the level of throwing out the barrel of apples because you found a couple rotten.

Using your own argument.

Why don't you prove that welfare does more harm then good. Show us the evidence.

You don't know about the Support of the National Guard in Nicaragua (who were harboured in America under Jimmy Carter)
Except we aren't talking about Jimmy Carter we are talking about Reagan. If you make one more reference to Jimmy Carter, I will be mean to you. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan two entirely different people. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, who was president for long gas lines and delivered one of the biggest "FUCK YOU"s to the military to date. Ronald Reagan was president of one of the greatest periods of economic growth in the U.S. and managed inreased military pay and development while lowering taxes.
- Or the Iran-Contra affair? Have you been living under a rock?
I wanted the words to come from your mouth. The first part of an argument (especially one on the internet) is to assume that you are talking to someone who doesn't know anything about the topic. Anyone on NS could read that post, and some may not be awares of your exact ideas on the Contras.

Haha, how naive can you get?
Do I detect a slight heat increase, I certainly doubt that Holiest Nazi Weaponized Virus would flame.

Reagan specifically approved the training, funding and arming of Anti-Sadinista Rebels (Contras) in Honduras, The Contras waged War on the Sadinistas from Honduras - while the CIA provided assistance, The crimes of The Contras ranged from mass rape to torture and mass murder - as clearly represented in the correspondence they had with American CIA Operatives in Honduras - which of course was laid back to Reagan through Casey. There was no effort made to talk about the 'morals' or 'ethics' of creating a group such as The Contras, simply because The Revolution of The Sadinistas against the brutal Somozas did not tie in with US Interests. Ironically the Sadnistas were actually making conserable efforts to deal with large issues in Nicaragua such as Land Ownership and The Public Sector (Health e.t.c) The World Bank comented that its projects were "extraordinarily successful in Nicaragua in some sectors, better than anywhere else in the world." and in 1983, The Inter-American Development Bank concluded that "Nicaragua has made noteworthy progress in the social sector, which is laying the basis for long-term socio-economic development."
Those wonderful sadinistas were a group of guerillas who struck at the current government. They took over, and, with the official abolishment of torture, drafting of a new constitution, a lack of foreign involvement, increasing human rights, and promises of coming free elections, all seemed well. Then, however, they failed to keep their promises.
First they established a junta to rule the country (What, no free elections?)
Then, they aligned themselves with Cuba and the USSR (Enemies of the U.S., funny, neither you nor Noam noticed that fact)
They made other moves, typical of Marxist governments, including:

Running off the land owners and seizing their property
Sending out a literary campaign to "educate" the people (About what, you might ask. Well about the lack of God and the greatness of Castro, silly)
Directing threats of physical violence amongst the people (Of course, that is understandable. You don't want those commoners getting out of line and thinking about equality with the boss. No, communism doesn't have room for such anarchy)
Shutting down La Pensa, a newspaper, for not toeing the party line

Free elections later occured, and of course it is a mere coincidence that the leader of the junta that overthrew the old government and had been running everything for the past five years was elected.

But what is most notable is the role of John Negroponte as a US Ambassador to Nicaragua. His role was to completely destroy any resistance to US Imperialistic aims for Nicaragua. This does not bode well for what he has in mind for Iraq.
Are you referng to the John Dmitri Negroponte?
The John Dmitri Negroponte who was the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985?
The John Dmitri Negroponte who was, therefore, in a different country the whole time?

Sources:
Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html
I like how most of your sources are attributable to Noam Chomsky, it shows consistency. However, I don't know if I would beleive a man who finds the crimes of Pol Pot to be, at their worst, equitable to the actions of the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Other_criticisms), to much though. Further I don't know if I would trust his evaluations, considering the fact that he seems to approach every issue with the preconceived idea of the U.S. being the chief terrorist state (http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/n/no/noam_chomsky.html#Criticism%20of%20the%20United%20States%20government). He also believes in that wage slave silliness (thats on the previous site, too.)

I'd post more, but I am out of time. Maybe later.

Why is it that I have never heard of this Chomsky guy outside of this board. Oh yeah, cuz he is a joke, and a hack. Quote him all you want, it only certifies your madness.

I forgot to add some of my sources, so here they go:
Encylopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Sandinist.asp)
CNN Cold War Interveiws (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/sobalvarro/)
Some other guys research paper, he provided me with the Le Pensa being shut down (http://www.jorian.com/san.html)

Reagon cut taxes sand then rased then, he'd be upset with Bush's cutting only belief.

Ahhh the myth of the welfare queens. :rolleyes:

Sorry but the amount of people that have used it for a short spell are far more then the abusers. Your argument is on the level of throwing out the barrel of apples because you found a couple rotten.

Using your own argument.

Why don't you prove that welfare does more harm then good. Show us the evidence.


Drive thru the projects of any major US city. Enough said.

Social spending really cause more harm then good. Why work if you can be supported by the government.

Actually the Great Depression showed this to be wrong. Welfare helps the economy by giving money to people to buy neccesities. When jobless people get welfare they spend it which puts it back into the economy.

Without welfare alot of this money that would be spent stays out of the economy. Additionally you wind up with it less likely that these families children will be able to get any sort of education, which will limit them further.

Additionally without welfare many people who can't (or won't) find work would be forced to turn to crime, whether it be drug dealing(ok, this is a job, somewhat, just not a legal one) or theft or prostitution or whatever. Welfare makes people less desperate which means they are less likely to resort to crime for a living.

Welfare, within reason, is beneficial to society as a whole.

Drive thru the projects of any major US city. Enough said.

Drive through the projects of Canada, a country with far more social programs and spending per capita then the US. Far less crime, better housing, safer, less run down.

In fact, few people would recognize Canadian public housing projects as being substantially poorer then other lower/middle class neighborhoods.

Except we aren't talking about Jimmy Carter we are talking about Reagan. If you make one more reference to Jimmy Carter, I will be mean to you. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan two entirely different people. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat, who was president for long gas lines and delivered one of the biggest "FUCK YOU"s to the military to date. Ronald Reagan was president of one of the greatest periods of economic growth in the U.S. and managed inreased military pay and development while lowering taxes.

Except free enterprise voodoo economics is also accompanied by massive recessions - demonstrated in Britain as well, not to mention the severe social problems that arise as a result of this bastardization of economics. And I am not playing favourites, Carter created these problems as well, with his reluctance to stop the National Guard's crimes.

Those wonderful sadinistas were a group of guerillas who struck at the current government. They took over, and, with the official abolishment of torture, drafting of a new constitution, a lack of foreign involvement, increasing human rights, and promises of coming free elections, all seemed well. Then, however, they failed to keep their promises.

Except the methods used to counter them, and the group used were a hundred times worse. Most of the World agreed that The US had committed terrorist crimes and when the Security Council ordered reparations to be paid the U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets - undefended civilian targets. Again, this is represented in correspondence with Negroponte and Casey.

First they established a junta to rule the country (What, no free elections?)
Then, they aligned themselves with Cuba and the USSR (Enemies of the U.S., funny, neither you nor Noam noticed that fact)

They were aware, as was the rest of the World - that America viewed the uprising as a problem. As the Somozas had always catered for US interests. Washington therefore came to the conclusion that The new regime was an enemy state - The Sadinistas knew this as well. What is most interesting however, is how most of the Contras were top Somoza officers. And that The Contras never put forward a political programme, their only priority was to topple a regime that the US deemed threatening to its economic and political influences.

They made other moves, typical of Marxist governments, including:

Running off the land owners and seizing their property

It was a typical 'land redistribution' policy, as most of the land had been seized from peasants under the Somozas anyway and given to people deemed 'favourable' to thier cause.

Sending out a literary campaign to "educate" the people (About what, you might ask. Well about the lack of God and the greatness of Castro, silly).

Again, this does not equate in any way to the crimes of US Government in fully supporting in both economic and military terms, a group as vile as the Contras.

Directing threats of physical violence amongst the people (Of course, that is understandable. You don't want those commoners getting out of line and thinking about equality with the boss. No, communism doesn't have room for such anarchy)

Sources and facts?

Shutting down La Pensa, a newspaper, for not toeing the party line


Are you serious? I think you are referring to an incident in 1978 were the Nicaraguan Editor of the Paper La Pensa (Pedro Chamorro) was killed by gunmen after being critical of the Somoza Family's regime in Nicaragua. Research things a little more before you write them down. His murder was actually one of the catalysts that drove the uprising.
Free elections later occured, and of course it is a mere coincidence that the leader of the junta that overthrew the old government and had been running everything for the past five years was elected.

Are you referng to the John Dmitri Negroponte?
The John Dmitri Negroponte who was the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985?

Sorry, a typo.

The John Dmitri Negroponte who was, therefore, in a different country the whole time?

No, Honduras was the staging ground for terrorist attacks against the Nicaraguan people. Negroponte therefore had a vital role to play in quelling any unrest in Honduras about US terrorist supported action there.

I like how most of your sources are attributable to Noam Chomsky, it shows consistency. However, I don't know if I would beleive.

Chomsky is a master of political analysation, and one of the greatest researchers of modern times. He is no Michael Moore, he is one of the most accomplished intellectuals alive.

Reagan's dead. Let's move on and forget that walking economic recession ever existed. There's a new enemy now, remember?

Except free enterprise voodoo economics is also accompanied by massive recessions - demonstrated in Britain as well, not to mention the severe social problems that arise as a result of this bastardization of economics.
Free enterprise is accompanied by massive recessions? Hm, it seems that somebody failed to inform the U.S. of that fact. Of course we're all just stupid americans who didn't realize that the economy was supposed to crash, and instead we had one of the strongest periods of peacetime growth in the hitory of the U.S.
It would also seem that the fact that government controlled enterprise (the opposite of private) should be successful, based on your assertions.
I wonder why no one told Cuba or the U.S.S.R.? They should have realized that their economies should have boomed when they made the switch, not dropped like a wounded falcon.

And I am not playing favourites, Carter created these problems as well, with his reluctance to stop the National Guard's crimes.
Once again, you are talking about Carter, this isn't a thread to talk about Carter, but a thread about Reagon. It isn't playing favorites, it's a matter of sticking to the matter at hand. Hijacking your own thread is kind of stupid.

Except the methods used to counter them, and the group used were a hundred times worse.
Methods like murder, torture, censorship, threats of violence, guerilla warfare, theft, the use of secret police, etc.?
Why do these sound familiar?
Could they have been used by the sadinistas to keep the plebians in line?

Most of the World agreed that The US had committed terrorist crimes and when the Security Council ordered reparations to be paid the U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets - undefended civilian targets. Again, this is represented in correspondence with Negroponte and Casey.
So you say. This correspondance should be public record if you can get ahold of the transcripts. Why don't you point out where they could be found? The same goes for the records of the Security Council.
Just a quick question would you consider holding a countries legislator hostage, the use of "divine mobs" to assault the opposition, the organized efforts to subvert nearby peoples who have lived out there days alongside you peacefully, the killing of civilians or the theft of property to be "terrorism"?
If so, it makes me wonder how you can support the sadinistas, who have commited all of the above.

They were aware, as was the rest of the World - that America viewed the uprising as a problem. As the Somozas had always catered for US interests. Washington therefore came to the conclusion that The new regime was an enemy state - The Sadinistas knew this as well. What is most interesting however, is how most of the Contras were top Somoza officers. And that The Contras never put forward a political programme, their only priority was to topple a regime that the US deemed threatening to its economic and political influences.
It isn''t so much that the U.S. and the Somozas were buddies, as it was the alliance and funding that the sadinistas were receiving from the U.S.S.R. and Cuba. The U.S. wasn't eager to have even more of the U.S.S.R.'s pawns for neighbors. Also, the sadinistas were only so eager to enspire similar Communist friendly governments across Central America.
Further, I would prefer a group that doesn't propose a political program to one thats political program is entirely compose of either lies or dangerous policy.
Finally, what was the U.S. economic and political gain in being involved with the Contras? Does Nicaragua have some resources I don't know of? And political interests really doesn't work, considering the Iran-Contra scandal.

It was a typical 'land redistribution' policy, as most of the land had been seized from peasants under the Somozas anyway and given to people deemed 'favourable' to thier cause.
So if me and some of my good friends came to your house tonight with a small cache of AK-47s and seized your property, you wwouldn't object? What if we called it the S.S.T.U.B.N.W.V.H., pronounced stub-n-wuv (Soviet State That Used to Be Nazi Weaponized Virus' House)? What if we had the backing of Cuba? What if we allowed you to use the bathroom still?

Again, this does not equate in any way to the crimes of US Government in fully supporting in both economic and military terms, a group as vile as the Contras.
Oh, so mass brain washing is a good thing now?
Sorry, I never got the memo.

Sources and facts?
Did you view the link for the CNN interview? I would take first hand testimony over the views of some washed up anti-U.S. crackpot anyday.

Are you serious?
More serious than I get most of the time.

I think you are referring to an incident in 1978 were the Nicaraguan Editor of the Paper La Pensa (Pedro Chamorro) was killed by gunmen after being critical of the Somoza Family's regime in Nicaragua. Research things a little more before you write them down. His murder was actually one of the catalysts that drove the uprising.
No, I think I am refering to the repeated incidences of censorhip inflictged upon La Pensa by the sadinistas.
Perhaps you should read up on some non-Chomsky sources before revealing your phenomenal ignorance.
You won't beleive me, so I've got some sources for this very section:
The Yale Free Press (http://www.yale.edu/yfp/archives/89_5_nicaragua.html) It is in the second to last paragraph.
Mini mini biography of Violeta Chamorro (http://www.fact-index.com/v/vi/violeta_chamorro.html)
Carter’s Man in Managua (http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/007518.php) About half way down the page.

Free elections later occured, and of course it is a mere coincidence that the leader of the junta that overthrew the old government and had been running everything for the past five years was elected.
I wonder why you didn't post a reply to this claim?
No excuses for your beloved "Revolutuionaries"?

Sorry, a typo.
Oh, thats understandable. Whenever I try to type "Nicaragua" I type "Honduras." The letters are so close together.
I mean, it is imposibble to believe that you and Noam Chomsky might have attempted to intentionally skew the facts in hopes that no one would call you on it.

No, Honduras was the staging ground for terrorist attacks against the Nicaraguan people. Negroponte therefore had a vital role to play in quelling any unrest in Honduras about US terrorist supported action there.
Is this the same Honduras from which the sadinistas launched their assault to seize power in the forst place, or have you made more typos?

Chomsky is a master of political analysation, and one of the greatest researchers of modern times. He is no Michael Moore, he is one of the most accomplished intellectuals alive.
Look, I can ssay that my dog is a master of political analysis, one of the greatest intellectuals and such. It doesn't make it true. Either site where your god among men won the "Mor Smartir than God"(typoes intentional), or don't make the claim. After your argument about Reagan being hell, I'd think that you would quit trying to pass off your beleifs as fact.

Free enterprise is accompanied by massive recessions? Hm, it seems that somebody failed to inform the U.S. of that fact. Of course we're all just stupid americans who didn't realize that the economy was supposed to crash, and instead we had one of the strongest periods of peacetime growth in the hitory of the U.S.

There are different types of free enterprise economics. For example, mass-deregulation on issues such as the stock market, which led to a crash in the 20's when this was put into effect under the Hoover Administration, or the 'voodoo economics' pursued by Reagan, which worked under the assumption that tax cuts lead to greater economic growth. Unfortunately, although this was the case, Reagan did not seem to pre-empt the issue of economic overheating. This type of free enterprise (I can't be bothered to go into the specifics right now) was championed by Reagan and Thatcher during the 80's and ended in a tomultous crash several years later in the late 80's.

It would also seem that the fact that government controlled enterprise (the opposite of private) should be successful, based on your assertions.
I wonder why no one told Cuba or the U.S.S.R.? They should have realized that their economies should have boomed when they made the switch, not dropped like a wounded falcon.

I believe a balance needs to be struck, in issues such as Health, Education and Welfare, profits should not, and should never be an issue. Having a competing Private Sector operating with the Public Sector is acceptable, but having an entirely private system for these key areas is barbaric - somebodies wealth should not be the deciding factor in whether they can have a good standard of healthcare or not.

Once again, you are talking about Carter, this isn't a thread to talk about Carter, but a thread about Reagon. It isn't playing favorites, it's a matter of sticking to the matter at hand. Hijacking your own thread is kind of stupid.

It seems kind of appropriate that I should talk about Carter, as it was his Somoza National Guard Leaders that provided the Leadership backbone for the Contras. Moreover, the fact he smuggled a group of Murderers out of the country in Jets painted with Red Cross colours (A War Crime) also seems worthy of note, as a representation of American Foreign Policy.

Methods like murder, torture, censorship, threats of violence, guerilla warfare, theft, the use of secret police, etc.?
Why do these sound familiar?
Could they have been used by the sadinistas to keep the plebians in line?

From Accounts I have read in the sources given (in many cases containing direct correspondence with those who endured Somoza brutality), I have to come to the conclusion that the crimes of The Sadinistas were in no way, shape or form, comparable to the crimes of the Somozas. The Somozas killed more people, imprisoned more people and were generally a more brutal regime. The Contras (The National Guard Somoza Leaders) - were even more brutal in thier attempts to overthrow the Sadinista Government.

So you say. This correspondance should be public record if you can get ahold of the transcripts. Why don't you point out where they could be found? The same goes for the records of the Security Council.

Actually, the evidence for correspondence was from a CIA Operative talking about the relationship between Negroponte, Reagan and Casey. It is from the book David and Goliath: The U.S. War Against Nicaragua and quoted below.

"One CIA Operative commented that Reagan, 'Demanded Casey tell Negroponte to give more detailed feedback on the success of the programme' - as his recent reports were 'taking too long to arrive, and were too incomplete'."

And as for evidence regarding a UN Security Council Resolution... Oh well, if you are that ignorant.

In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the World Court against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through direct attack by US forces and through training, funding and support of the terrorist forces. The US was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and was ordered to pay reparations. The US response to this ruling was to dismiss the juristiction of the court and escalate the war.

The UN Security Council then immediately responded by submitting a Resolution that called on all states to abide by International Law, this was subsequently vetoed by the US.

(Hegemony or Survival - Appendix)

Just a quick question would you consider holding a countries legislator hostage, the use of "divine mobs" to assault the opposition, the organized efforts to subvert nearby peoples who have lived out there days alongside you peacefully, the killing of civilians or the theft of property to be "terrorism"?
If so, it makes me wonder how you can support the sadinistas, who have commited all of the above.

I never claimed to support the Sadinistas, I claimed that The US' involvement in the War, and support for a group as vile as the Contras was more despicable. As evidence from two World Bodies (Including the IMF) in preivous posts show, the Sadinistas were making some attempts that met with relative success to secure good services for the populace, The American backed Contra Terrorist intervention however, destabilized everything, as was their intent, proven by a State Department Insider's boasting that they would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" (that equates to politically isolated and economically ravaged - Source: The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas - Roger Miranda)

The Sadinistas response was far from exemplary (mobs in some case attacked those they believed to be supporters of The Contas - yet there is not yet any direct proof of a plan organized by Central Government to harm those 'Politcal Dissidents' in any way) , but nonetheless, understandable - acting like a wounding dog would, lashing out.

It isn''t so much that the U.S. and the Somozas were buddies, as it was the alliance and funding that the sadinistas were receiving from the U.S.S.R. and Cuba. The U.S. wasn't eager to have even more of the U.S.S.R.'s pawns for neighbors. Also, the sadinistas were only so eager to enspire similar Communist friendly governments across Central America.
Further, I would prefer a group that doesn't propose a political program to one thats political program is entirely compose of either lies or dangerous policy.

Well you just proved your point excellently there. Talk about political ideological 'influencing' over other states, how about the fact that US Diplomats from the State Department have been travelling to LEDC's for the past 50 years under the guise of the Truman Doctrine to try and convince them to privatized thier industries, and thus open up more opportunity for foreign investment. If you want to talk about influence, and military enforcement of idelogy, we can talk about The US all day.

And you just proved yourself again, saying you would prefer a group who committed some of the worst crimes seen in Central America, and who had no political doctrine. Over a Government that was making real progress, as demonstrated in reports that the World Bank and other NGOs were drafting out about Sadinistan Nicaragua. You can find two earlier in the thread.

Finally, what was the U.S. economic and political gain in being involved with the Contras? Does Nicaragua have some resources I don't know of? And political interests really doesn't work, considering the Iran-Contra scandal.

It was primarily to oppose to 'The Domino Theory' - A theory that has contradicted US Policy for years. If there are no 'badly treated workers' in these countries deemed to be suscpetible to TDC, as The US often claims. How come the Communists can summon up such massive support for thier cause?

So if me and some of my good friends came to your house tonight with a small cache of AK-47s and seized your property, you wwouldn't object? What if we called it the S.S.T.U.B.N.W.V.H., pronounced stub-n-wuv (Soviet State That Used to Be Nazi Weaponized Virus' House)? What if we had the backing of Cuba? What if we allowed you to use the bathroom still?

Thats nonsensical, my parents didn't steal my house - after a corrupt Government deemed them 'good people'. They bought it. Stop resorting to ridiculous hypothetical situations and use facts for a change. And I would prefer it if you didn't talk about seizing my parents house by force. It really bears no relevance to this situations and displays no parralels between land redistribution in Nicaragua.

Oh, so mass brain washing is a good thing now?
Sorry, I never got the memo.

America itself has a well developed system of indoctrination, through the schools to the mainstream media, as you are now displaying, excellently.

Did you view the link for the CNN interview? I would take first hand testimony over the views of some washed up anti-U.S. crackpot anyday.

I would hardly call Chomsky a 'crackpot', a man beloved by Liberals - yet hated by Conservatives. You can't have 'no opinion' of him - as somebody excellently put it. But I would rather take the advice of every large well respected Newspaper and University in the World, and hence consider Chomsky a gifted intellectual. Rather than take the advice of a crackpot Conservative.

No, I think I am refering to the repeated incidences of censorhip inflictged upon La Pensa by the sadinistas.
Perhaps you should read up on some non-Chomsky sources before revealing your phenomenal ignorance.

Now, now, lets not flame. I'm sure your used ot having no one oppose your... Shall we say? - Intellectually Challenged views, buts thats no need for that kind of behaviour.

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/ipi_ni_00.pdf

There you go. From a Nicaraguan. And I would hardly regard a column from A Yale student visitng Nicaragua for the first time, with a picture of an eagle on the top of the page (blind patriotism anyone?) as a good source.

I wonder why you didn't post a reply to this claim?
No excuses for your beloved "Revolutuionaries"?

Are you honestly trying to equate the success of the Centre-Right Coalition to the Contras? If so you are a sick person. The 'Victory' of the Centre Right was a scam anyway, as Tony Avrigan writes "the Sandinistas fell for a scam perpetrated by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias and the other Central American Presidents, which cost them the February [1990] elections." The peace plan of 87 was a good thing for Nicaragua, they scheduled the elections forward a few months, as they had been asked to and they allowed democratic elections overseen by The UN (as they had done in '84), this was "in exchange for having the contras demobilized and the war brought to an end." However, Reagan had no mind to bring the destructive terror campaign he had unleashed to an end, nor any mind to implement any of the plan - The US tripple CIA funding and supplies to the Contras after this and within a couple of months the peace plan was dead. But perhaps most importantly - The US made it clear that the Economic Embargo on Nicaragua would continue if The Sadinistas won the election.

(Sources: Mesoamerica (Journal - South America) Blood of the Innocent: Victims of the Contras' War in Nicaragua Teofile Cabestero U.S. Foreign Policy After the Cold War Richard Nelson The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas Roger Miranda Ratliff)


You have to be some kind of moron to believe that these issues compound to make a 'Free Election'.

Oh, thats understandable. Whenever I try to type "Nicaragua" I type "Honduras." The letters are so close together.
I mean, it is imposibble to believe that you and Noam Chomsky might have attempted to intentionally skew the facts in hopes that no one would call you on it.

Why do you have to turn this into such a heated debate? Do you strive for personal argument out of bitterness or something?

I was thinking about Nicaragua at the time and accidentally typed in down instead of Honduras. I believe that is fair mistake to make, seeing as I never highlighted the grammatical and spelling problem you seem to have, gathering by your last post.

Look, I can ssay that my dog is a master of political analysis, one of the greatest intellectuals and such. It doesn't make it true. Either site where your god among men won the "Mor Smartir than God"(typoes intentional), or don't make the claim. After your argument about Reagan being hell, I'd think that you would quit trying to pass off your beleifs as fact.

And we are officially back to square 1 :D

There are different types of free enterprise economics. For example, mass-deregulation on issues such as the stock market, which led to a crash in the 20's when this was put into effect under the Hoover Administration, or the 'voodoo economics' pursued by Reagan, which worked under the assumption that tax cuts lead to greater economic growth. Unfortunately, although this was the case, Reagan did not seem to pre-empt the issue of economic overheating. This type of free enterprise (I can't be bothered to go into the specifics right now) was championed by Reagan and Thatcher during the 80's and ended in a tomultous crash several years later in the late 80's.
Once again, I guess you just can't rely on stupid americans. It seems that while the economy was quite obviously crashing, they just insisted on continuing economic growth right up until the turn of the decade. Those crazy Americans!

I believe a balance needs to be struck, in issues such as Health, Education and Welfare, profits should not, and should never be an issue. Having a competing Private Sector operating with the Public Sector is acceptable, but having an entirely private system for these key areas is barbaric - somebodies wealth should not be the deciding factor in whether they can have a good standard of healthcare or not.
That would work if it weren't for humans.
If the government touches something, it has to hold it. Any regulation of any sort leads to total regulation and over-taxation.
Even if you should keep the government away (A feat that would require a cadre of the most talented lawyers all equiped with RPGs) then the private secotr will take advantage o the government. It starts small, a government loan to cover that companies profits, a little extra taxation on the competitors, maybe some regulations that favor PCs over Macs, but then it just grows up until massive government buy outs cause the government to start hemoraging money left and right. This will require more taxes, which will cause more companies to crash and burn, and before you can say Fidel Castro your all starving and the only remaining businesses are smuggling and prositution.

From Accounts I have read in the sources given (in many cases containing direct correspondence with those who endured Somoza brutality), I have to come to the conclusion that the crimes of The Sadinistas were in no way, shape or form, comparable to the crimes of the Somozas. The Somozas killed more people, imprisoned more people and were generally a more brutal regime. The Contras (The National Guard Somoza Leaders) - were even more brutal in thier attempts to overthrow the Sadinista Government.
Why don't you look at some of the interviews with people who suffered from sadinista brutality?
Further, the sadinistas were in charge for less than a third of the amount of time that the somozas held power. Meaning that to get an accurate fix on their comparitive evil you would have to reduce somoza ccruelty to less than a third. I never said I like the somozas anyway, I just said that I didn't agree with your support of the sadinistas.

Actually, the evidence for correspondence was from a CIA Operative talking about the relationship between Negroponte, Reagan and Casey. It is from the book David and Goliath: The U.S. War Against Nicaragua and quoted below.

"One CIA Operative commented that Reagan, 'Demanded Casey tell Negroponte to give more detailed feedback on the success of the programme' - as his recent reports were 'taking too long to arrive, and were too incomplete'."

Wow, the evil just drips off the page right there. How can some write something like that, I'm surprised its mere existence didn't kill babies, but that is because I am a complete idiot. Where does that say "Kill civilians"? Or is there some kind of code I don't know about.

And as for evidence regarding a UN Security Council Resolution... Oh well, if you are that ignorant.
Not ignorant, lazy. I don't want to go looking for the proof behind an argument I don't believe in. I am, afterall, only american.


In 1984 Nicaragua filed a suit in the World Court against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States, which in 1986 resulted in a guilty verdict against the US, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua through direct attack by US forces and through training, funding and support of the terrorist forces. The US was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and was ordered to pay reparations. The US response to this ruling was to dismiss the juristiction of the court and escalate the war.

The UN Security Council then immediately responded by submitting a Resolution that called on all states to abide by International Law, this was subsequently vetoed by the US.

I was asking for more detailied information, like what countries voted which way. After all, the U.S.S.R. and friends would vote against a U.S. measure to send balloons to the Nicaraguans because it might intefere with their plans.

I never claimed to support the Sadinistas, I claimed that The US' involvement in the War, and support for a group as vile as the Contras was more despicable. As evidence from two World Bodies (Including the IMF) in preivous posts show, the Sadinistas were making some attempts that met with relative success to secure good services for the populace, The American backed Contra Terrorist intervention however, destabilized everything, as was their intent, proven by a State Department Insider's boasting that they would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" (that equates to politically isolated and economically ravaged - Source: The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas - Roger Miranda)
If you don't support the Sadinistas, then why are you arguing in favor of them?
Why do you quote various monetary organizations to say that they were making progress?
Are you just trying to distance yourself from yourself? It doesn't work, remember, wherever you go, there you are.

The Sadinistas response was far from exemplary (mobs in some case attacked those they believed to be supporters of The Contas - yet there is not yet any direct proof of a plan organized by Central Government to harm those 'Politcal Dissidents' in any way) , but nonetheless, understandable - acting like a wounding dog would, lashing out.
So it is understandable to kill the enemies of your regime?
*Cough*Justificationofmurder*Cough*

Well you just proved your point excellently there. Talk about political ideological 'influencing' over other states, how about the fact that US Diplomats from the State Department have been travelling to LEDC's for the past 50 years under the guise of the Truman Doctrine to try and convince them to privatized thier industries, and thus open up more opportunity for foreign investment. If you want to talk about influence, and military enforcement of idelogy, we can talk about The US all day.
If we were talking about the U.S., than I suppose we could. However, we are talking about the Contras, the Sadinistas, and Reagan.
Anyway, maybe they wanted industry privatized because that is the only way that economies have developed?
Consider the following:
Way back in the Middle-Ages, the government controlled industry. The king governed the country (like the federal part of the government) and the nobles governed their peice of land (like local gov). The people who lived on that land grew crops and payed taxes to the noble, who then provided supplies and troops to the king.
Craftsmen were useful, so guilds were established to govern the craftsmen, the guilds functioned much like the nobles did, taxing their workers and paying off the king.
Up to this point, development had been very low. Consider the many, many millenia that had passed for humans, and this is far as they got. However, eventually (I'm summarizing here) people started working indepentently of guilds, freeing up craftsmen to develop new methods w/o outside interference, laws went into place, allowing people to own the land they farmed, and in under a millenia Europe (and later the U.S.) have developed the internal combustion engine (replacing the horse that had been the former method of transportation for far too long), nuclear power, the telephone, the internet, the computer, electricity, the machine gun, the tank, air travel, etc., etc.
The western world went from paranoid superstition to enlightenment. It went from exclusive monarchys to free republics. It went from trodding on the ground to soaring over it. We went from a flat earth to a round one. From ghosts to computers. From word of mouth to the printing press and then to word of mouth again (telephones) and back again to text (internet). All this because the government butted out and left people to do what they wanted.

And you just proved yourself again, saying you would prefer a group who committed some of the worst crimes seen in Central America, and who had no political doctrine. Over a Government that was making real progress, as demonstrated in reports that the World Bank and other NGOs were drafting out about Sadinistan Nicaragua. You can find two earlier in the thread.
But didn't you just say that you didn't support the sadinistas?
:confused:

It was primarily to oppose to 'The Domino Theory' - A theory that has contradicted US Policy for years. If there are no 'badly treated workers' in these countries deemed to be suscpetible to TDC, as The US often claims. How come the Communists can summon up such massive support for thier cause?
Communists get support because the idea of an easy life and the common lie of the rich stealing from the poor appeals to every gutter rat in existence. Some people will do anything to advance, and if that anything means theft, than so be it. What greater theft than stealing an entire nation?

Thats nonsensical, my parents didn't steal my house - after a corrupt Government deemed them 'good people'. They bought it. Stop resorting to ridiculous hypothetical situations and use facts for a change. And I would prefer it if you didn't talk about seizing my parents house by force. It really bears no relevance to this situations and displays no parralels between land redistribution in Nicaragua.
Ah, so those peasants who had their land seized received it from the government?
And no, there is no difference between the sitation I described and seizing your house. I'm sure at one point that land was owned by someone else, mayhaps a native clan or some such group, and that it was seized by a more powerful group. The difference between my proposed situation and that of the sadinistas was that I would have let you use the bathroom. The sadinistas either killed the former land owners or ran them out.

America itself has a well developed system of indoctrination, through the schools to the mainstream media, as you are now displaying, excellently.
I always find it amusing how everyone claims the media is biased against them. The media is apparently simultaneuosly run by Jews who are trying to press forth with their Jew powers, dangerous Nazis who hate Jews, rabid conservatives who hate all that is good, rabid liberals who hate all that is good, rabid anti-americans who hate america and rabid pro-americans who are biased and smell like disembowled tigers.

I would hardly call Chomsky a 'crackpot', a man beloved by Liberals - yet hated by Conservatives. You can't have 'no opinion' of him - as somebody excellently put it. But I would rather take the advice of every large well respected Newspaper and University in the World, and hence consider Chomsky a gifted intellectual. Rather than take the advice of a crackpot Conservative.
Funny, because I have been exposed to just about every side of the economic and societal coin, and yet hardly anyone seems to care about Chomsky. If he is as great as you claim why is it that only elitist and people with too much time on their hands care about him?

Now, now, lets not flame. I'm sure your used ot having no one oppose your... Shall we say? - Intellectually Challenged views, buts thats no need for that kind of behaviour.

http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/ipi_ni_00.pdf

There you go. From a Nicaraguan. And I would hardly regard a column from A Yale student visitng Nicaragua for the first time, with a picture of an eagle on the top of the page (blind patriotism anyone?) as a good source.
So the fact that one out of three of my sources was written by an American at Yale completely invalidates my argument? What about his quotes from nicaraguans about the brutality of the sadinistas? What about the idea that maybe that Nicaraguan is aafflicted with blind patriotism?
Oh yeah, now I remember, Americans are all stupid, lazy, worthless bastards who aer mean to the people of Central America and, despite a political process where power regularly changes hands, are all alike.

Are you honestly trying to equate the success of the Centre-Right Coalition to the Contras? If so you are a sick person. The 'Victory' of the Centre Right was a scam anyway, as Tony Avrigan writes "the Sandinistas fell for a scam perpetrated by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias and the other Central American Presidents, which cost them the February [1990] elections." The peace plan of 87 was a good thing for Nicaragua, they scheduled the elections forward a few months, as they had been asked to and they allowed democratic elections overseen by The UN (as they had done in '84), this was "in exchange for having the contras demobilized and the war brought to an end." However, Reagan had no mind to bring the destructive terror campaign he had unleashed to an end, nor any mind to implement any of the plan - The US tripple CIA funding and supplies to the Contras after this and within a couple of months the peace plan was dead. But perhaps most importantly - The US made it clear that the Economic Embargo on Nicaragua would continue if The Sadinistas won the election.
So your saying that the U.S. fixed the election to go against the sadinistas?
The sadinistas must have some american roots, considering the fact that they are too stupid to listen to you. They won the election because anyone who wasn't actively for the sadinistas was assualted by "divine mobs." Like most socialist governments they used secret police and a personal military to pound those plebians straight.

You have to be some kind of moron to believe that these issues compound to make a 'Free Election'.
Then doesn't that make you the moron?

Why do you have to turn this into such a heated debate? Do you strive for personal argument out of bitterness or something?
You're right, it is bitterness. Bitterness at the way you toe the Chomsky line and refuse to acknowledge his bias, bitterness at the blind resentment that U.S. receives (I'm not saying we're angels, but please, pick something that we really did do wrong to call us on. The funding of the U.S.S.R., Kennedy's betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, the harsh repirations against Germany after WWI that led to WW2, the fact that we allowed WWII to go on for so long before entering, the ham handed yet limp wristed way that Clinton tried to handle world affairs, etc. If fools like the U.N. and Chomsky are going to hate my coutry, hate it for something we deserve.
Don't take it personally, think of it more of the lovebite you get from a ferret or other rodent. Take the analogy between me and rodents even further if you like.

I was thinking about Nicaragua at the time and accidentally typed in down instead of Honduras. I believe that is fair mistake to make, seeing as I never highlighted the grammatical and spelling problem you seem to have, gathering by your last post.
So accidentally misspelling a word or using the wrong puncutation is on par with misrepresenting facts?
I must remember this, you have taught me much about the way of the world.

And we are officially back to square 1 :D
That is because you keep forcing me to regress back there with unfounded claims. The growth of this argument has been stunted by your refusal to build upon a solid foundation.

Noam Chomsky distorts the truth in the same way Michael Moore does. They just use differant mediums to promote their lies.

Noam Chomsky distorts the truth in the same way Michael Moore does. They just use differant mediums to promote their lies.

Prove it.

Once again, I guess you just can't rely on stupid americans. It seems that while the economy was quite obviously crashing, they just insisted on continuing economic growth right up until the turn of the decade. Those crazy Americans!

Nope, there was a major market downturn at the end of the 80's.


That would work if it weren't for humans.
If the government touches something, it has to hold it. Any regulation of any sort leads to total regulation and over-taxation.

We have Public Health in Britain, and I wouldn't say we were subject to over-taxation. In fact, The NHS i one of the greatest things about Britain.


Even if you should keep the government away (A feat that would require a cadre of the most talented lawyers all equiped with RPGs) then the private secotr will take advantage o the government. It starts small, a government loan to cover that companies profits, a little extra taxation on the competitors, maybe some regulations that favor PCs over Macs, but then it just grows up until massive government buy outs cause the government to start hemoraging money left and right. This will require more taxes, which will cause more companies to crash and burn, and before you can say Fidel Castro your all starving and the only remaining businesses are smuggling and prositution.

Heh, A supporter of Batista. Private companies run alongside Government owned industries in Europe, and I have yet to see any of the 'crashing and burning' you talk about. If we want to care for everyone, not just the rich, what exactly is wrong with that? I don't care whether Europe doesn't achieve 8 or 9 percent economic growth, so long as we keep our principles in regards to services such as health.


Why don't you look at some of the interviews with people who suffered from sadinista brutality?

I have read about 'Sadinista Brutality', and it seems to be overplayed. The media of course doesn't dare to approach the issue of Somoza brutality, which, even if cut into a third - still overshadows 'Sadinista Brutality' by a long shot. The Sadinistas did not have a 'National Guard', as the Somozas did, carrying out crimes like bombing the residential neighbourhoods in Managua (a bastion of Sadinista support), which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Mentioning one off incidents does, in no way, compare with these killings. Furthermore you have yet to give any account of 'Sadinista brutality' - I would be interested in hearing how it equates to a crime like the killing of tens of thousands in the Managua district.


Wow, the evil just drips off the page right there. How can some write something like that, I'm surprised its mere existence didn't kill babies, but that is because I am a complete idiot. Where does that say "Kill civilians"? Or is there some kind of code I don't know about.

Nope, it shows there was correspondence about the technicalities of what was going on in Nicaragua.


I was asking for more detailied information, like what countries voted which way. After all, the U.S.S.R. and friends would vote against a U.S. measure to send balloons to the Nicaraguans because it might intefere with their plans.

It was a landslide against the US, they attempted to implement the Security Council Resolution twice, with the full support of The Security Council and the other nations, but it was vetoed by the US the first time, and then by The US and Israel 2 years later.


If you don't support the Sadinistas, then why are you arguing in favor of them?
Why do you quote various monetary organizations to say that they were making progress?

The US Government were understandably scared by the progress made by The Sadinistas, and so added to thier efforts concerning the Contras through the CIA after reports by The IMF and World Bank, the theory was, according to 'Peasants in Arms: War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua' to "Divert funds away the Successful Domestic programmes, and put it into the War effort." I support the Sadinistas in the fact that they were a much, much better Government that those that had preceeded them. The mass celebrations on the streets after the end of The Somoza rule showed just how happy the people were to get rid of them and replace them with the Sadinistas.


So it is understandable to kill the enemies of your regime?
*Cough*Justificationofmurder*Cough*

Justification does not equal me saying it was understandable. Nine eleven was 'understandable' because of the US injustices in the Middle-East, yet it was not justifiable. Maybe perhaps the Pentagon attack and USS Cole attacks were, as they were Military Targets, but not the WTC.

And there are no records of the Sadinistas brutality ever equalling the brutality of the Somozas or Contras. They never mass bombed areas in Residential neighbourhoods, and in fact, the people were quite happy to see members of the Somoza regime that had remained behind be executed.


If we were talking about the U.S., than I suppose we could. However, we are talking about the Contras, the Sadinistas, and Reagan.

No, we are talking about the situation as a whole, Nicaragua is the topic at the moment, and Carter had a vital role to play in his harbouring of National Guard terrorists that would later be used by Reagan.


Anyway, maybe they wanted industry privatized because that is the only way that economies have developed?

Economics have developed through mixed economies, not 100% Socialism or 100% Capitalism. A free market cannot 'regulate itself' as has so often been put forward by Neo-Conservatives, Economists, including a lecturer from the LSE, told me this was 'one of the most ridiculous things they'd heard'


But didn't you just say that you didn't support the sadinistas?
:confused:

Considering thier progress in Domestic Areas before the Contra Terrorist War, the brutality of the Somozas that preceeded them and thier compliance with UN Regulations of their elections in '84 and '87 (before they were tricked), I would have to say yes.


Communists get support because the idea of an easy life and the common lie of the rich stealing from the poor appeals to every gutter rat in existence. Some people will do anything to advance, and if that anything means theft, than so be it. What greater theft than stealing an entire nation?

Like when the oligarchs stole every single industry in Russia during Yeltsin's reign? Go and ask some ordinary Russians what they thought of that. And as for your comments about people 'wanting an easy life' I have to say that I originally laughed when I saw this. How could anyone be so naive? Put yourself in thier position, as a peasant under a brutal dictator who had given your farm to somebody deemed 'trustworthy to his cause'. I'm sure they were just thinking about getting 'free welfare handouts,' right?


And no, there is no difference between the sitation I described and seizing your house. I'm sure at one point that land was owned by someone else, mayhaps a native clan or some such group, and that it was seized by a more powerful group. The difference between my proposed situation and that of the sadinistas was that I would have let you use the bathroom. The sadinistas either killed the former land owners or ran them out.

Erm no, we're talking about two huge different time differentials there. One within the space of a decade, the other within the space of a a few hundred years. And as I mentioned before, my parents bought this house off of the preivous owner. We did not recieve it off of the Government for being supportive of their cause. A stupid analagy.


I always find it amusing how everyone claims the media is biased against them. The media is apparently simultaneuosly run by Jews who are trying to press forth with their Jew powers, dangerous Nazis who hate Jews, rabid conservatives who hate all that is good, rabid liberals who hate all that is good, rabid anti-americans who hate america and rabid pro-americans who are biased and smell like disembowled tigers.

Media is corporately owned in America - They operate therefore, on Conservative values and have vested interests in keeping Conservative Governments in power, be it the Democrats or the Republicans. Thier prime duty is to deliver a profit to thier shareholders, and soforth, they tell the Public what they want to hear. This is evident with all Media Stations in America, not just FOX News.


So the fact that one out of three of my sources was written by an American at Yale completely invalidates my argument? What about his quotes from nicaraguans about the brutality of the sadinistas? What about the idea that maybe that Nicaraguan is aafflicted with blind patriotism?
Oh yeah, now I remember, Americans are all stupid, lazy, worthless bastards who aer mean to the people of Central America and, despite a political process where power regularly changes hands, are all alike.

Political power changes hands, but then the Public takes a spectators role in the whole affair. Reagan was voted into office on a landslide, yet a Gallup Poll 2 years into his Administration said that 67% of Americans disagreed with his Policies, yet what could they do about it? Nothing, because real democracies permits direct action from the Public, and this would be a disastrous for the Corporations and other such groups in America.

And Plus:

On 10th January, 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, the publisher of the La Prensa newspaper and a strong opponent of the government, was assassinated. Evidence was uncovered that the publisher had been killed by Somoza's son and members of the National Guard. On 23rd January a nationwide strike began and the workers demanded an end to the military dictatorship.

Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDsandinista.htm

Another one.

So your saying that the U.S. fixed the election to go against the sadinistas?
The sadinistas must have some american roots, considering the fact that they are too stupid to listen to you. They won the election because anyone who wasn't actively for the sadinistas was assualted by "divine mobs." Like most socialist governments they used secret police and a personal military to pound those plebians straight.

Strange how the Sadinistas weren't the ones to have a National Guard, eh? And please disprove what I just said, using evidence and facts, rather than just spewing out the rhetoric I have come to associate with you.


You're right, it is bitterness. Bitterness at the way you toe the Chomsky line and refuse to acknowledge his bias, bitterness at the blind resentment that U.S. receives (I'm not saying we're angels, but please, pick something that we really did do wrong to call us on. The funding of the U.S.S.R., Kennedy's betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, the harsh repirations against Germany after WWI that led to WW2, the fact that we allowed WWII to go on for so long before entering, the ham handed yet limp wristed way that Clinton tried to handle world affairs, etc. If fools like the U.N. and Chomsky are going to hate my coutry, hate it for something we deserve.

Of course you admit you are bitter, you cannot take someone having an alternate view to your unsubstantiated rubbish. And just for the record, I have read many Right Wing books on subjects such as Iraq, before I decided what view to take, and they did nothing to alay my fears. Rather they were just full of rhetoric and hypotheticals, much like you.

And secondly Clinton never handled affairs with a 'limp wrist' he was responsible for some of the most disgusting acts of Hegemony just as much as Republicans were - for example the cruise missile bombing of Iraq in '93 was ridiculous, it was just to show to the World what a 'hardliner' he was. And The Bay of Pigs was another disgusting event, a bunch of rich businessmen exiles who thought of themselves as 'revolutionaries' even though 90% of the populace despised Batista - They weren't heroes, they died on the ground like the pigs they were.


So accidentally misspelling a word or using the wrong puncutation is on par with misrepresenting facts?
I must remember this, you have taught me much about the way of the world.

Erm no, I pointed out that in your preivous post, as well as this one, you have made many spelling and gramatical errors that I could point out if I was bitter enough to do it. My use of the word Nicaragua, instead of Honduras hardly equates to 'misrepresenting facts' and you complete pursual of what amounts to a minor mistake shows that you can't address the real issues. As you have proven.

That is because you keep forcing me to regress back there with unfounded claims. The growth of this argument has been stunted by your refusal to build upon a solid foundation.

Actually you have provided me with no reason to believe what you are saying, after all your facts are never backed up by sources, and when they are the sources are usually things like www.encyclopaedia.com :D

Prove it.

Haven't you learnt anything about right wingers? They hardly ever 'prove' anything. Just look at our good friends Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan.

Why is it that I have never heard of this Chomsky guy outside of this board. Oh yeah, cuz he is a joke, and a hack. Quote him all you want, it only certifies your madness.
no because the filth that owns our media wont air him cause hes speaks the truth

Hey dimwit, when Clinton came into office he signed the largest tax increase in history. It wasn't just the top 1% that had the increase.
yeah but by him doing that he caused the biggest econimc expanision in world history

Nope, there was a major market downturn at the end of the 80's.
No, just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. If so I would be rich and have an arsenal of RPGs, AK-47s, shotguns, and berettas. The American economy continued to grow until George Senior did what he could to thrash the success out of it.

We have Public Health in Britain, and I wouldn't say we were subject to over-taxation. In fact, The NHS i one of the greatest things about Britain.
Last time I checked, Britain is also having problems with injured people and expectant mothers going there in order to take advantage of subsidized medicine. Further, as of June 2004 there were 885,400 on the waiting list for health care, from Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12031). Don't think I can say the same for the U.S. which has about five times the population.
Anyway, there is government support of medicine in the U.S. No one can be turned away when they are in desperate need of care. If you're having a heart attack you won't be tossed out of the E.R., if you've got the sniffles, however, you will have to cough up the cash.

Heh, A supporter of Batista. Private companies run alongside Government owned industries in Europe, and I have yet to see any of the 'crashing and burning' you talk about. If we want to care for everyone, not just the rich, what exactly is wrong with that? I don't care whether Europe doesn't achieve 8 or 9 percent economic growth, so long as we keep our principles in regards to services such as health.
I am not a Batista or a neo-con or any other label that you would like me to fall under. I am a libertarian. I would like nothing better than for the U.S. to be able to lie within its borders. However, Hitler didn't allow it, the U.S.S.R. didn't allow it, and Osama won't allow it. And before you scream about it, no I am not in favor of the Iraq War, but I was in favor of the War in Afghanistan.
Anyway, you believe that as long as the government insures that people are equal, it doesn't matter if they are equal in misery?
Further, your "principles in regards to services such as health" isn't going to solve anything. Why are new medicines discovered? Why, to make money!
Why would you become a doctor, a job in which people hold you responsible for their getting sick, you have long hours, and you have to devote years of your life to get the degree (and then you've only just started)? Why, to make absurdly huge amounts of money!
Why did people go through the effort to discover? Why, to make money!
Before you start, I am sure that some people would do these kind of things anyway, but "Mother Theresa"s are one in several billion.

I have read about 'Sadinista Brutality', and it seems to be overplayed. The media of course doesn't dare to approach the issue of Somoza brutality, which, even if cut into a third - still overshadows 'Sadinista Brutality' by a long shot. The Sadinistas did not have a 'National Guard', as the Somozas did
You're right there, they had the Sandinista Popular Army to work for the interest of the sadinista party.

carrying out crimes like bombing the residential neighbourhoods in Managua (a bastion of Sadinista support), which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Mentioning one off incidents does, in no way, compare with these killings. Furthermore you have yet to give any account of 'Sadinista brutality' - I would be interested in hearing how it equates to a crime like the killing of tens of thousands in the Managua district.
What about the oppression of religion and native peoples?
What about threats of physical violence?
What about killing potential political rivals?
I would hardly call the systematic methods of the sadinistas "one offs". You, however, seem to focus solely on one incident (bombing Managua neighborhoods).

Nope, it shows there was correspondence about the technicalities of what was going on in Nicaragua.
I don't see how the President of the U.S. requesting complete and up to date information from one of his Ambassador's is sinister. I don't see where they mentioned Nicaragua, just a program (with the british spelling, no less). You, after all, said: "the U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets - undefended civilian targets." So, since when does saying that an Ambassodor's reports are "taking too long to arrive, and were too incomplete" translate into "Kill some civilians for me, John."

It was a landslide against the US, they attempted to implement the Security Council Resolution twice, with the full support of The Security Council and the other nations, but it was vetoed by the US the first time, and then by The US and Israel 2 years later.
But it was vetoed. That means that despite anything, there was no international ruling. It was no more valid than a bill that goes from the legislative branch and gets vetoed by the executive branch.
It may be a technicality, but thats just the way the cookie gets stolen by thrice-damned foriegn capitalists.

The US Government were understandably scared by the progress made by The Sadinistas, and so added to thier efforts concerning the Contras through the CIA after reports by The IMF and World Bank, the theory was, according to 'Peasants in Arms: War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua' to "Divert funds away the Successful Domestic programmes, and put it into the War effort." I support the Sadinistas in the fact that they were a much, much better Government that those that had preceeded them. The mass celebrations on the streets after the end of The Somoza rule showed just how happy the people were to get rid of them and replace them with the Sadinistas.
No, the people were celebrating the lack of somozas. Very quickly they learned that they had leapt from the frying pan to the fire.
At best, the sadinistas were just as bad as the sozomas (Have you read any of my links? The CNN interview would sufice).

Justification does not equal me saying it was understandable. Nine eleven was 'understandable' because of the US injustices in the Middle-East, yet it was not justifiable. Maybe perhaps the Pentagon attack and USS Cole attacks were, as they were Military Targets, but not the WTC.
And now you are arguing over definitions and the difference between justifiable and understandable. Maybe there is a difference, but it is so small as to be almost negligable.

And there are no records of the Sadinistas brutality ever equalling the brutality of the Somozas or Contras. They never mass bombed areas in Residential neighbourhoods, and in fact, the people were quite happy to see members of the Somoza regime that had remained behind be executed.
Do you even read what you type? How can you view death by association as an acceptable practice? The somozas were killed because the sadinistas were afraid that if the people realized jsut how short an end of the stick they received, they'd want their old rulers back. The somozas were killed in order to prevent political rivals from arising.

No, we are talking about the situation as a whole, Nicaragua is the topic at the moment, and Carter had a vital role to play in his harbouring of National Guard terrorists that would later be used by Reagan.
You mean Nicaragua, Socialism/Communism, Reagonomics, the U.S., Ronald Reagan and Chomsky are just the topics we are consistant about. There is also religion, who is in hell right now, your specific typos, my vague typos, which one of us is ignorant and the fact that you try to avoid backing yourself up whenever possible.
Accept that we can both agree that Carter was a douche bag. So there is no point to arguing about his actions.

Economics have developed through mixed economies, not 100% Socialism or 100% Capitalism. A free market cannot 'regulate itself' as has so often been put forward by Neo-Conservatives, Economists, including a lecturer from the LSE, told me this was 'one of the most ridiculous things they'd heard'
No, nothing develops from socialism. Point out to me three world changing development that came from socialism or communism. In that time I can bring you nine that have come from capatilism and the free market.
Also, a free market does self-regulate a whole Hell (with or without Reagan) of a lot better than the government regulates.
Further, a truly free market wouldn't need economists, so of course they'd hate the idea. In a free market, supply and demand even each other out. If Bob sells socks for $1.50 a pair, but Joe can sell them for $1.25 a pair, people will go to Joe to get their socks and Bob will either cut his prices or leave.
Anyways, Neo-cons aren't in favor of a truly free market. Neo-cons would have the government involved in order to prevent "sin goods" from getting through (things like drugs, alcohol, whores, gambling and Windows OS).

Considering thier progress in Domestic Areas before the Contra Terrorist War, the brutality of the Somozas that preceeded them and thier compliance with UN Regulations of their elections in '84 and '87 (before they were tricked), I would have to say yes.
The fair elections that made the change of power from the sadinista leaaders to the same sadinista leaders? That was a coincidence, right?
There was a space of less than three years between the sadinistas taking power and the contras officially starting their action. So, are you telling me that in three years time you can evaluate a groups success in governance?
I find it intenssly amusing that you continue to delude yourself about the contras, claiming that they were the displaced elites of Nicaragua. How could a pack of military officers and elitists lead a popular revolt? How could they gain the support of peasants that the socialists purported to be the party of?

Like when the oligarchs stole every single industry in Russia during Yeltsin's reign? Go and ask some ordinary Russians what they thought of that. And as for your comments about people 'wanting an easy life' I have to say that I originally laughed when I saw this. How could anyone be so naive? Put yourself in thier position, as a peasant under a brutal dictator who had given your farm to somebody deemed 'trustworthy to his cause'. I'm sure they were just thinking about getting 'free welfare handouts,' right?
*Cough*Sadinitas*Cough*
Sorry about that, but I just couldn't help but cough, you see whenever I see such obvious ignorance it upsets my throat in a rather uncomfortable manner.
I want you to point out (without mentioning Noam Chomsky) where it is said that the sozomas seized property. I have already done so for the sadinistas, adn the property they seized wasn't from big land owners, it was from the peasants who had farmed it for years.
Further, the idea behind socialist revolutions is the same one behind robbery. "I want what you have. I have a gun. Pony up, now." then they spread it amongst their fellow theives. Socialist leaders are just robber barons of another name.

Erm no, we're talking about two huge different time differentials there. One within the space of a decade, the other within the space of a a few hundred years. And as I mentioned before, my parents bought this house off of the preivous owner. We did not recieve it off of the Government for being supportive of their cause. A stupid analagy.
But at some point it was taken at one point. Further, the somozas were around for almost a century, not a decade, or was that just another innocent typo.

Media is corporately owned in America - They operate therefore, on Conservative values and have vested interests in keeping Conservative Governments in power, be it the Democrats or the Republicans. Thier prime duty is to deliver a profit to thier shareholders, and soforth, they tell the Public what they want to hear. This is evident with all Media Stations in America, not just FOX News.
You quite obviously have never watched MSNBC, ABC, NBC or CNN. You have never read the Newsweek or listened to NPR.

Political power changes hands, but then the Public takes a spectators role in the whole affair. Reagan was voted into office on a landslide, yet a Gallup Poll 2 years into his Administration said that 67% of Americans disagreed with his Policies, yet what could they do about it? Nothing, because real democracies permits direct action from the Public, and this would be a disastrous for the Corporations and other such groups in America.
Excuse me, how long has Tony Blair been the leader of Parliament again? Since 1997, you say. That would be how long? 7 years, well thats not that bad, I suppose.
But whats that I see on Britannia.com (http://www.britannia.com/gov/primes/)? Could it be Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister for 11 years?
Oh, wait, I think I missed something. Oh yes, the Prime Minister isn't elected by the people of Britain. (S)he is elected by the people elected by the people.
The point of the U.S. system of government is that the government is independent of the people most of the time. This prevents anarchy (can you imagine a system of government in which the governing officials were kicked ou anytime the public got cranky) but regular elections make the government responsible to the people without anarchy.

On 10th January, 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, the publisher of the La Prensa newspaper and a strong opponent of the government, was assassinated. Evidence was uncovered that the publisher had been killed by Somoza's son and members of the National Guard. On 23rd January a nationwide strike began and the workers demanded an end to the military dictatorship.
Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDsandinista.htm

Another one.

Strange how the Sadinistas weren't the ones to have a National Guard, eh? And please disprove what I just said, using evidence and facts, rather than just spewing out the rhetoric I have come to associate with you.
I never said they didn't kill Pedro. If you were reading my posts, you would know that I said that the sadinistas regularly shut down and censored La Pensa because the people running realized what complete ass-hats the sadinistas were and made the paper an anti-sadinista paper.
I have provided an actual argument, you have just yelled the same things over and over, with little or no change.
Of course, I suppose if you yell loud enough it drowns out the opposition.

Of course you admit you are bitter, you cannot take someone having an alternate view to your unsubstantiated rubbish. And just for the record, I have read many Right Wing books on subjects such as Iraq, before I decided what view to take, and they did nothing to alay my fears. Rather they were just full of rhetoric and hypotheticals, much like you.
Its signifigantly more substantiated then you and your closet full of theorists. I mean, it took me until either page two or three to get you to start presenting anything even resembling facts. Before that your intellectual state could be summed up as:
"OMG, REGAN SUXXXORS!!!11! OMFG, WTF!!1 J00 ARE C0NS3RV4T1V3!!!11!! J00 SUXXXORS!!1! CH0MSKY PWNZ ALL!!!1!LOL!!!1! REGAN 1S 1N H3L!11!ROFL!!!1!"

And secondly Clinton never handled affairs with a 'limp wrist' he was responsible for some of the most disgusting acts of Hegemony just as much as Republicans were - for example the cruise missile bombing of Iraq in '93 was ridiculous, it was just to show to the World what a 'hardliner' he was.
Did he ever follow up on his pitiful attempt at a tough guy routine? No? Then it would be fare to say that he treated things in a ham fisted limp wristed manner. He was the epitome of "Whine alot and carrying a twig for poking."

And The Bay of Pigs was another disgusting event, a bunch of rich businessmen exiles who thought of themselves as 'revolutionaries' even though 90% of the populace despised Batista - They weren't heroes, they died on the ground like the pigs they were.
You worthless sack of shit. I can accept alot of things from someone based on their own idiocy, but to accuse the Cubans who were betrayed by Kennedy of being pigs. You know you were starting to grow on me, but such blatant slander is inexcusable. They knew more about heroism and bravery than you can ever pray to your non-existant God for. You accuse me of justifying murder, and then you make a joke about Castro slaughtering the stranded fighters in the Bay of Pigs.
If, as you claim, 90% of the cuban population was in favor of Castro, then how come many times that unhappy 10% have fled the country?

Erm no, I pointed out that in your preivous post, as well as this one, you have made many spelling and gramatical errors that I could point out if I was bitter enough to do it. My use of the word Nicaragua, instead of Honduras hardly equates to 'misrepresenting facts' and you complete pursual of what amounts to a minor mistake shows that you can't address the real issues. As you have proven.
There is a wide gulf of difference between misstating the name of a country and accidentally typing "sstand."

Actually you have provided me with no reason to believe what you are saying, after all your facts are never backed up by sources, and when they are the sources are usually things like www.encyclopaedia.com :D
First of all, you didn't back up your arguments until I skewerd you on it repeatedly and refused to accept your lies at face value.
Further, I have produced more sources than you have bothered to, as well as all sources being from different authors, as opposed to your inbreeding style repeat Noam sources.
Finally, I want to know how you can exist in two realities at once (with neither of them being this one). How can I have no sources while I am using sources that don't meet your high quality standards. Quite the paradox, no?

he cant answer you he was censored

Last time I checked, Britain is also having problems with injured people and expectant mothers going there in order to take advantage of subsidized medicine. Further, as of June 2004 there were 885,400 on the waiting list for health care, from Medical News Today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12031). Don't think I can say the same for the U.S. which has about five times the population.

Britain has problems with the NHS, but it is still an example to the World - Most of Europe's Healthcare systems are public and this leads to a more fair system - Healthcare is a necessity, not a priviledge. And for the record The NHS is improving dramatically under Labour's plans of investment, decreases in waiting lists (and the waiting lists do not relate to every form of treatment), cancer mortality rates and heart disease mortality rates. There are tens of thousands of new doctors, and nurses, and above all The system is being restored to the place of respect that it once held.


You're right there, they had the Sandinista Popular Army to work for the interest of the sadinista party.

Whose crimes were in no way, shape or form comparable to that of National Guard or the Contras. Lets listen to a quote from John Pilger, an author who visited Nicaragua many times.

“…morning after morning, I saw bodies killed by Reagan's clients, including pregnant women. In its attacks on Nicaragua, Reagan's "contra" forces specialized in slitting the throats of midwives and children as they slept. The military unit "used shock and suffocation devices in interrogations. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves."


What about the oppression of religion and native peoples?
What about threats of physical violence?
What about killing potential political rivals?
I would hardly call the systematic methods of the sadinistas "one offs". You, however, seem to focus solely on one incident (bombing Managua neighborhoods).

One incident which killed thousands. It's also wrong to call it an 'incident' actually, as repeated terrorist actions were committed against this particular section of the Capitol over many years.


I don't see how the President of the U.S. requesting complete and up to date information from one of his Ambassador's is sinister. I don't see where they mentioned Nicaragua, just a program (with the british spelling, no less). You, after all, said: "the U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets - undefended civilian targets." So, since when does saying that an Ambassodor's reports are "taking too long to arrive, and were too incomplete" translate into "Kill some civilians for me, John."

It proves he was kept up to date of everything that was occurring. And he doubtless knew about the order to 'attack soft targets' after the Sadinistas lived up to every end of thier side of the bargain of the Central American peace plan, when the US did not, as The CIA mentioned this repeatedly, hoping people would equate it with militarily soft targets. Alas, it meant the infrastructure of the country.


But it was vetoed. That means that despite anything, there was no international ruling. It was no more valid than a bill that goes from the legislative branch and gets vetoed by the executive branch.

Of course it was valid, it was supported by the entire Security Council as well as the vast majority of NSCNs. The US's power to veto it does not mean the bill itself lost credibility, rather The US Administration did not want something that causes all nations to abide by a stringent code of human rights.


No, the people were celebrating the lack of somozas. Very quickly they learned that they had leapt from the frying pan to the fire.

The Sadinistas had vast support among the populace when they came to power actually, thier public service reforms were extremely popular - which of course was dangerous to the US.


And now you are arguing over definitions and the difference between justifiable and understandable. Maybe there is a difference, but it is so small as to be almost negligable.

Understandable means whether the reasoning behind the execution was... 'understandable', justifiable means whether the execution based on this reasoning was morally right.


Do you even read what you type? How can you view death by association as an acceptable practice? The somozas were killed because the sadinistas were afraid that if the people realized jsut how short an end of the stick they received, they'd want their old rulers back. The somozas were killed in order to prevent political rivals from arising.

Haha, you make me laugh :D

'The people wanted the Somozas back' did they?

Provide at least one shread of relatively unbias evidence that makes this the case.


You mean Nicaragua, Socialism/Communism, Reagonomics, the U.S., Ronald Reagan and Chomsky are just the topics we are consistant about. There is also religion, who is in hell right now, your specific typos, my vague typos, which one of us is ignorant and the fact that you try to avoid backing yourself up whenever possible.

You have provided yourself with few sources - most are either www.encyclopaedia.com and a student visiting Nicaragua from Yale.
I on the other hand, have provided websites, books and extracts to back up my case.
Sorry if your side seems a bit... unsubstantiated :D


No, nothing develops from socialism. Point out to me three world changing development that came from socialism or communism. In that time I can bring you nine that have come from capatilism and the free market.
Also, a free market does self-regulate a whole Hell (with or without Reagan) of a lot better than the government regulates.

Total free market economics is a joke. Lets look at the media industry - In an ideal free market system the people would watch the News Channel that was the most unbias. But... Strangely enough they don't - They view the channel that tells them what they want to hear.



The fair elections that made the change of power from the sadinista leaaders to the same sadinista leaders? That was a coincidence, right?
There was a space of less than three years between the sadinistas taking power and the contras officially starting their action. So, are you telling me that in three years time you can evaluate a groups success in governance?
I find it intenssly amusing that you continue to delude yourself about the contras, claiming that they were the displaced elites of Nicaragua. How could a pack of military officers and elitists lead a ppopular revolt? How could they gain the support of peasants that the socialists purported to be the party of?


"Simultaneously, the U.S. administration of Ronald Reagan began organizing remnants of Somoza's National Guard into guerrilla bands known as "Contras" that conducted terrorist attacks on economic and civilian targets. During the Contra war, the Sandinistas arrested suspected Contras and censored La Prensa as well as other publications that they accused of collaborating with the U.S. and the Contras to destabilize the country."

www.wordiq.com
And also

"It is a gross fabrication to claim that the contras are composed of democratic groups".... As I can attest, the 'contra', military force is directed and controlled by officers of Somoza's National Guard.... During my four years as a 'contra director, it was premeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the Government. Hundreds of civilian murders, tortures and rapes were committed in pursuit of this policy, of which the 'contra' leaders and their CIA superiors were well aware."

Edgar Chamorro - former member of the directorate of the main contra organization, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), in a 1986 interview

And strange how the Sadinistas came to power via a democratic election (in which they won 62% of the vote in '84 - which was overseen by members of The UN), while The Somoza's were a dictatorship. Your reasoning in wishing an undemocratic Government to replace the democratic regime of The Sadinistas seems highly amusing, especially when it is only because you express dislike torwards the Sadinista's reversing of the unfair Somoza Policies.

*Cough*Sadinitas*Cough*
Sorry about that, but I just couldn't help but cough, you see whenever I see such obvious ignorance it upsets my throat in a rather uncomfortable manner.
I want you to point out (without mentioning Noam Chomsky) where it is said that the sozomas seized property. I have already done so for the sadinistas, adn the property they seized wasn't from big land owners, it was from the peasants who had farmed it for years.

"land ownership by a relatively small proportion of the population has led to an immense disparity in income and wealth. Less than half of all farmers own land. 48.8 percent are tenant farmers, and the remaining 6.4 percent have mixed tenure agreements. Most of these agreements were forced upon the land owning populace under the Somoza's and thier policy regarding land ownership, and to say most of them were 'ridiculously unfair' would be an understatement"

Blood of the Innocent: Victims of the Contras' War in Nicaragua


Further, the idea behind socialist revolutions is the same one behind robbery. "I want what you have. I have a gun. Pony up, now." then they spread it amongst their fellow theives. Socialist leaders are just robber barons of another name.

Like Somoza who left the country on the day of the revolution, with half the countries treasury?
And the Sadinistas progressed with thier 'land reform' programme, reversing the methods of the Somoza's, who imposed ownership upon peasants, and in some cases, took it by force. In fact, lets look at some other programmes that drew applause from NGOs.

-Improved rural and urban working conditions.

-Free unionization for all workers, both urban and rural.

-Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine).

-Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign).

-Nationalization and protection of natural resources, including mines.
Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty.
Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organization and association, and religion; return of political exiles).

-Equality for women.

-Pesticide controls

-Rain forest conservation

-Wildlife conservation

-Alternative energy programs



But at some point it was taken at one point. Further, the somozas were around for almost a century, not a decade, or was that just another innocent typo.

It's still a ridiculous analagy to draw. Seeing as how my parent's paid for thier property and all - and how they did


Excuse me, how long has Tony Blair been the leader of Parliament again? Since 1997, you say. That would be how long? 7 years, well thats not that bad, I suppose.
But whats that I see on Britannia.com (http://www.britannia.com/gov/primes/)? Could it be Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister for 11 years?
Oh, wait, I think I missed something. Oh yeah, the Prime Minister isn't elected by the people of Britain. He is elected by the people elected by the people.
The point of our system of government is that the government is independent of the people most of the time. This prevents anarchy (can you imagine a system of government in which the governing officials were kicked ou anytime the public got cranky) but regular elections make the government responsible to the people.

Not entirely, while National Elections do impose a certain sense of obligation, the Public still have to largely take a spectator's role to the policies unfolding before thier eyes. Representative democracy simply doesn't 'represent' the wishes of the people. As was proved with Reagan's reign.


I never said they didn't kill Pedro. If you were reading my posts, you would know that I said that the sadinistas regularly shut down and censored La Pensa because the people running realized what complete ass-hats the sadinistas were and made the paper an anti-sadinista paper.
I have provided an actual argument, you have just yelled the same things over and over, with little or no change.
Of course, I suppose if you yell loud enough it drowns out the opposition.

No, I provided a coherent response to your argument which was based on ridiculous sources.


Its signifigantly more substantiated then you and your closet full of theorists. I mean, it took me until either page two or three to get you to start presenting anything even resembling facts. Before that your intellectual state could be summed up as:
"OMG, REGAN SUXXXORS!!!11! OMFG, WTF!!1 J00 ARE C0NS3RV4T1V3!!!11!! J00 SUXXXORS!!1! CH0MSKY PWNZ ALL!!!1!LOL!!!1! REGAN 1S 1N H3L!11!ROFL!!!1!"

Really? I don't remember posting "OMG, REGAN SUXXXORS!!!11! OMFG, WTF!!1 J00 ARE C0NS3RV4T1V3!!!11!! J00 SUXXXORS!!1! CH0MSKY PWNZ ALL!!!1!LOL!!!1! REGAN 1S 1N H3L!11!ROFL!!!1!" Perhaps you are just trying to detract argument away from the points at hand?


Did he ever follow up on his pitiful attempt at a tough guy routine? No? Then it would be fare to say that he treated things in a ham fisted limp wristed manner. He was the epitome of "Whine alot and carrying a twig for poking."

Tell me, on what issues was Clinton 'ham fisted'? As I have just proven, he launched cruise missiles against Iraq based on a pathetic pretext. That somebody who may, or may not have been Iraqi, was attempting to assasinate President Bush during his tenour in office. And the fact you justify this by saying he failed to follow up on it only adds to your overall idiocy.


You worthless sack of shit. I can accept alot of things from someone based on their own idiocy, but to accuse the Cubans who were betrayed by Kennedy of being pigs. You know you were starting to grow on me, but such blatant slander is inexcusable.

Look them up - They weren't 'revolutionaires' at all - Most of them were simply people who benefited under the criminal 'Batista' regime. And most people have fled the country due to sanctions crippling the Cuban economy, before the widespread sanctions - Cuba's people were benefitting from increased innoculation from diseases (which had been preivously reserved for the rich), free schooling for all and free healthcare for all.


There is a wide gulf of difference between misstating the name of a country and accidentally typing "sstand."

Can't you argue the issues or something? I said it was a mistake - Simple as.


First of all, you didn't back up your arguments until I skewerd you on it repeatedly and refused to accept your lies at face value.
Further, I have produced more sources than you have bothered to, as well as all sources being from different authors, as opposed to your inbreeding style repeat Noam sources.
Finally, I want to know how you can exist in two realities at once (with neither of them being this one). How can I have no sources while I am using sources that don't meet your high quality standards. Quite the paradox, no?

So far I have mentioned, 6 Books that I am reading, 5 Websites, witness testimony, and numerous quotes from Political Journals that are not from 'Noam Sources'. You on the other hand, seem to regard www.encyclopaedia.com and a student from Yale visiting Nicaragua once (in which the page he posted his article had a pciture of an eagle at the top - a clear sign of his patriotism torwards America) as 'sources' - A truly funny thing :D

Britain has problems with the NHS, but it is still an example to the World - Most of Europe's Healthcare systems are public and this leads to a more fair system - Healthcare is a necessity, not a priviledge. And for the record The NHS is improving dramatically under Labour's plans of investment, decreases in waiting lists (and the waiting lists do not relate to every form of treatment), cancer mortality rates and heart disease mortality rates. There are tens of thousands of new doctors, and nurses, and above all The system is being restored to the place of respect that it once held.
You're right, that is why, if you are in need, you can't be refused treatment in the U.S. Outside of urgent necessity allowing people free access to hospitals creates waiting lists.
Tell me, how many people are on the American treatment list?
What you mean, there isn't one?

Whose crimes were in no way, shape or form comparable to that of National Guard or the Contras. Lets listen to a quote from John Pilger, an author who visited Nicaragua many times.
Yes, lets listen to John Pilger, who believes that the U.S. staged 9/11.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who sees the U.S. as more of a threat than the terrorists in Iraq.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who blames the U.N.'s sactions against Iraq for the deaths there.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who blames the Australians for not loving all the refugees flooding in.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who loves nothing better than to enter his readers with tales of the icky U.S.
Lets listen to John Pilger, conspiracy theorist, sensationalist, fraud.
Lets listen to John Pilger.

One incident which killed thousands. It's also wrong to call it an 'incident' actually, as repeated terrorist actions were committed against this particular section of the Capitol over many years.
So it is a single incident and it isn't a single incident.
Using "actually" in midstatement reveals that, actually, you spoke before you thought and need to backtrack a bit.

It proves he was kept up to date of everything that was occurring.
It proves that he wanted to be "kept up to date of everything that was occuring."
I'd say that demanding information from your man in the field might somehow imply that said man was being somewhat less than candid or regualar with his reports. If this is true it shoots your argument against Reagan about the contras straight to Hell (at the time a Reagan free one, might I add), does it not?

And he doubtless knew about the order to 'attack soft targets' after the Sadinistas lived up to every end of thier side of the bargain of the Central American peace plan, when the US did not, as The CIA mentioned this repeatedly, hoping people would equate it with militarily soft targets. Alas, it meant the infrastructure of the country.
So, at first you said that Reagan gave "official orders to attack what are called soft targets."
Now he merely "knew about the order to attack soft targers"?
I suppose next you'll say that he had a friend who had a friend who once stood in the same elveator with a really fat man whose brother was married to the woman who was diddling his best friend behind his back and that best friend "knew about the order to attack soft targets"?
Furthermore (as if I needed more) you claim that the CIA was "hoping people would equate it with military soft targets." Now, if, as you say, a soft target is inherently civilian, how is it that there can be Civilian Military targets?

Of course it was valid, it was supported by the entire Security Council as well as the vast majority of NSCNs. The US's power to veto it does not mean the bill itself lost credibility, rather The US Administration did not want something that causes all nations to abide by a stringent code of human rights.
No, it wasn't valid. It was vetoed and never became an official resolution. Maybe the U.S. had reasons like, oh I dunno, sadinista brutality to cause the U.S. to have to stay involved.

The Sadinistas had vast support among the populace when they came to power actually, thier public service reforms were extremely popular - which of course was dangerous to the US.
Public service reforms like robbing the people? Reforms about how people were executed perhaps? They seized the land from the peasants as well as seizing all industry and commerce (even foriegn owned property).

Understandable means whether the reasoning behind the execution was... 'understandable'
You can't use a wword in its own definition. Try again.

justifiable means whether the execution based on this reasoning was morally right.
No, I think you will find that justifiable means that there were legal reasons why something was done.

Haha, you make me laugh :D

'The people wanted the Somozas back' did they?

Provide at least one shread of relatively unbias evidence that makes this the case.
They didn't want the somozas back, but they didn't want the sadinistas either. It was the same policy that when the czars were butchered in Russia, or maybe you were in favor of the children being killed?
Aside, you find killing people based on their associations funny, do you?
I don't see why I should provide unbiaased sources when your own wear their bias on their sleeves, don't support your case when held up to the light of day or in one case, don't even agree with your arguments.

You have provided yourself with few sources - most are either www.encyclopaedia.com and a student visiting Nicaragua from Yale.
I on the other hand, have provided websites, books and extracts to back up my case.
Sorry if your side seems a bit... unsubstantiated :D
No, those are two sources that you can puruse as you like. Two out of eleven (thats less than 20%, so you don't have to hurt yourself thinking), by the by.
Of these websites: CNN, wikipedia.com, encyclopedia.com, the Yale Free Press, and others.
You havwe produced books and accounts from obviously biased authors (often the same obviously biased authors) as well as facts that, while they may be true, are far from inciminating.

Total free market economics is a joke. Lets look at the media industry - In an ideal free market system the people would watch the News Channel that was the most unbias. But... Strangely enough they don't - They view the channel that tells them what they want to hear.
I asked you for accomplishments (aside from some truly spectacular economic wrecks) that came out of socialism. You, instead, simply whine about bias.
You are right the media is biased, but you are completely wrong about the direction.
You want proof, well look at what we are arguing over:
We are discussing the fight between the sadinistas (the name that the sadinistas picked out for themselves) and the contras (the name that the sadinistas attached to their opponents), because that was the way the reporting was done. However, if you were really correct about bias, then we would be discussing the conflict between the piris (that being the pet name that the contras gave to the sadinistas) and the MILPAS (short for Milicias Populares Anti-Sandinistas, which means Anti-Sandinista People's Militias).

"Simultaneously, the U.S. administration of Ronald Reagan began organizing remnants of Somoza's National Guard into guerrilla bands known as "Contras" that conducted terrorist attacks on economic and civilian targets. During the Contra war, the Sandinistas arrested suspected Contras and censored La Prensa as well as other publications that they accused of collaborating with the U.S. and the Contras to destabilize the country."
Exactly, the sadinistas set out to seize control of the country. They used the excuse of terrorists to do it (a lot the current war on terrorism).

www.wordiq.com
And also
Wait just a tick here! You aer now siting a search engine as a source? And you would fault my credibility!

"It is a gross fabrication to claim that the contras are composed of democratic groups".... As I can attest, the 'contra', military force is directed and controlled by officers of Somoza's National Guard.... During my four years as a 'contra director, it was premeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the Government. Hundreds of civilian murders, tortures and rapes were committed in pursuit of this policy, of which the 'contra' leaders and their CIA superiors were well aware."
I find it hard to buy the idea that a leader of MILPAS would refer to his group as the "contras". Also, I doubt anyone sets out to win a popularity contest by making themselves into bigger ass-hats then the other guy.
Further, well I'll let Oscar Manuel Sobalvarro, chief of staff of the contras talk:
I started [fighting] on March 20, 1980, with hunting rifles. My purpose in fighting the Sandinista Front at that time was not to wage war against them but to convey to the Sandinista government the message that the peasants and many other Nicaraguans did not agree with [the introduction of] new things which were alien to the way of life that we knew, and that if what they were trying to do was to implant a totalitarian communist regime, well, we weren't going to agree to that. And that's how we began the struggle. Initially we were a group of 15 young men, and then it grew to 30, and I was one of the leaders and main promoters of the group.
Did I mention that he was one of those non-existant ex-peasants?

And strange how the Sadinistas came to power via a democratic election (in which they won 62% of the vote in '84 - which was overseen by members of The UN), while The Somoza's were a dictatorship. Your reasoning in wishing an undemocratic Government to replace the democratic regime of The Sadinistas seems highly amusing, especially when it is only because you express dislike torwards the Sadinista's reversing of the unfair Somoza Policies.
Yes, very strange. I am refering, of course, to the fact that you find it unusual that a group that have been supreme dictators of the area for seven years would win the government.
Further, have you ever paid attention to the U.N.? They couldn't oversee a bakesale.

"land ownership by a relatively small proportion of the population has led to an immense disparity in income and wealth. Less than half of all farmers own land. 48.8 percent are tenant farmers, and the remaining 6.4 percent have mixed tenure agreements. Most of these agreements were forced upon the land owning populace under the Somoza's and thier policy regarding land ownership, and to say most of them were 'ridiculously unfair' would be an understatement"
So 44.6% of the country was pro somoza enough to have land? 44.6% can hardly be called elite.
Anyways, you are saying that they forced thos evil landowners to sign agreements with those who didn't own land? If anything, that sounds unfair to the land owners.
Finally, you continually make the contras out to be filthy rich capatilist dogs, but if nearly half the population of Nicagagua was filthy rich capatilist dogs, then how can they be elite?

Like Somoza who left the country on the day of the revolution, with half the countries treasury?
And the Sadinistas progressed with thier 'land reform' programme, reversing the methods of the Somoza's, who imposed ownership upon peasants, and in some cases, took it by force. In fact, lets look at some other programmes that drew applause from NGOs.
So they imposed land ownership on people? Well, if only the U.S. would start imposing ownership on me.
"Hajekistan, you will take that farm over there or there will be serious legal reprecussions!"

-Improved rural and urban working conditions.
I have yet to see anyone that says this.

-Free unionization for all workers, both urban and rural.
They got people in unions because that made them easier to control. Once everyones in a union of some sort you don''t have to deal with individuals.

-Control of living costs, especially basic necessities (food, clothing, and medicine).
If you control living costs, you cut down on retail profits. If you cut down on retail profits, you reduce the net profit involved in making basic necessities. If you reduce the net profit in making basic necessities, foriegn importers won't come to your country and local industry wil start to feel an uncomfortable pinch. If industry gets pinched, they'll go get money some other method.
Congratulations, imports of "basic necessities" have been reduced and local industries production of them has dropped. Now you've got a shortage that can only be remedied by massive government interference and threats.

-Improved public services, housing conditions, education (mandatory, free through high school; schools available to the whole national population; national literacy campaign).
Which wwould be nice if the education requirements wasn't just a way of brain wasing the youth.

-Nationalization and protection of natural resources, including mines.
You mean the mines that were actually the property of foriegn nations?
That sounds suspiciously like theft to me.

Abolition of torture, political assassination and the death penalty.
Protection of democratic liberties (freedom of expression, political organization and association, and religion; return of political exiles).
How could they abloish the death penalty, and execute everyone who had any connection to the old regime?
Isn't my first question an example of political assassination?
Are you expecting me to believe that there was a section in the laws of Nicaragua for political assassination?
Arre you expecting me to believe that anyone made political assasination an official platform? (If elected I promise to kill my political rivals)
How could a group that sends people out to make sure everyone knows that there is no God promote freedom of religion?
How can a group that harrasses its enemies anytime the associate or organize claim to have offered freedom in such areas?
Finally, I think you are reading to much into the return of exiles. What better way, after all, to bring back in your old buddies who were kicked out of the country for being batshit crazy then to cover it up by inviting all rivals back?

-Equality for women.
Once again, I have seen nothing to indicate this happened.

-Pesticide controls

-Rain forest conservation

-Wildlife conservation

-Alternative energy programs
Well that makes it all all right does it? (We may have just commited a mass execution, but we've found out how to get power by burning the bodies)
It appears that the sadinistas were interestd in conserving everything, but their own people.

It's still a ridiculous analagy to draw. Seeing as how my parent's paid for thier property and all - and how they did
How they did what?
Furhter, last time I checked, the average life expectancy in Nicaragua was far from a century.
It doesn't matter though, the government seized the property (as well as foriegn property) and they did it from Honduras and El Salvador.

Not entirely, while National Elections do impose a certain sense of obligation, the Public still have to largely take a spectator's role to the policies unfolding before thier eyes. Representative democracy simply doesn't 'represent' the wishes of the people. As was proved with Reagan's reign.
Only about 2/3s of the U.S. population agreed with him, that is such a minority! If everytime 1/3 of the U.S. population got upset with the government massive changes went into play, then their might as well not be a government.
Further, the British system is no better. You don't even elect your executive, he is picked by the parliament.

No, I provided a coherent response to your argument which was based on ridiculous sources.
No, I brought up a point about La Pensa being shut down and censored by the sadinistas. You then started talking about an incident years earlier in which the leader of La Pensa was assassinated. I have never made reference to that incident, you are just trying to insist that we discuss it.
We have both agreed on the assassination, that ball is no longer in play. What we should be talking about is the fact that the sadinsitas censored La Pensa and shut it down in order to stop it revealing less than happy information about their method of governence.

Really? I don't remember posting "OMG, REGAN SUXXXORS!!!11! OMFG, WTF!!1 J00 ARE C0NS3RV4T1V3!!!11!! J00 SUXXXORS!!1! CH0MSKY PWNZ ALL!!!1!LOL!!!1! REGAN 1S 1N H3L!11!ROFL!!!1!" Perhaps you are just trying to detract argument away from the points at hand?
Like you are with La Pensa?

Tell me, on what issues was Clinton 'ham fisted'? As I have just proven, he launched cruise missiles against Iraq based on a pathetic pretext. That somebody who may, or may not have been Iraqi, was attempting to assasinate President Bush during his tenour in office. And the fact you justify this by saying he failed to follow up on it only adds to your overall idiocy.
Once again, why are you trying to argue when we both agree? Clinto was an ass, Jimmy Carter was an ass, JFK was an ass, FDR was an ass.
I would die (or at least get a bad case of the flu) before justifying Clinton's actions. His problem was that he tried to be tough and decisive, when all he could do was blow up aspirin factories.
Are you aware of the definition of "ham fisted"? "Lacking dexterity or grace" according to Merriam-Webster. I'd say that that kind of fumbling was typical of Clinton.

Look them up - They weren't 'revolutionaires' at all - Most of them were simply people who benefited under the criminal 'Batista' regime. And most people have fled the country due to sanctions crippling the Cuban economy, before the widespread sanctions - Cuba's people were benefitting from increased innoculation from diseases (which had been preivously reserved for the rich), free schooling for all and free healthcare for all.
Who was delivering this healthcare and these innoculations? Half of Cuba's doctors fled when Castro took over.
Do you know why Cubas sanctions are so tough now? I think it has somthing to do with an incident a few years back when the Cuban military shot a plane out of the sky.
What, you ask, were they doing that was so horrible that they had to be killed? They were ex-Cubans who were spreading leaflets to the people. That is why the sanctions are so harsh now.
Do you knwo what your hero did at the Bay of Pigs? His forces (with superior arms and training) fired howitzers upon them and used tanks to run them down. Those who were lucky enough not to be slaughtered were imprisoned, many dying in prison. Those few who survived were kept locked up for about 20 years.
Cuba is not in such trouble becuase of U.S. sanctions, that is all bull. Consider Cubas situation, a small group that went rogue from a world power. That power has sanctioned them and makes regular noises about taking them over again. you'd say that is Cuba's problem, right?
Well, then explain Taiwan's success.

Can't you argue the issues or something? I said it was a mistake - Simple as.
That argument has grown boring (though I thought we were arguing issues, or do you confess that your arguments are riddled with holes and lack solidarity) so I'll let it drop if you'll let Clinton, Carter, and Iraq drop.

So far I have mentioned, 6 Books that I am reading, 5 Websites, witness testimony, and numerous quotes from Political Journals that are not from 'Noam Sources'. You on the other hand, seem to regard www.encyclopaedia.com and a student from Yale visiting Nicaragua once (in which the page he posted his article had a pciture of an eagle at the top - a clear sign of his patriotism torwards America) as 'sources' - A truly funny thing :D
So the mere fact that there is an eagle on a webpage invalidates all information it might hold?
Political Journals probably say contra (revealing a bias against MILPAS) and so are right out.
Finally, since when does patriotism inherently invalidate your arguments?
Are you willfully that stupid?
I have noted many more Websites (none of which are Noam sources) and a medical journal. Further, if you bothered to read any of my sources you would note quotes from interviews (one of them was, in fact, an interview) with people who were oppossed to the sadinistas.

You're right, that is why, if you are in need, you can't be refused treatment in the U.S. Outside of urgent necessity allowing people free access to hospitals creates waiting lists.
Tell me, how many people are on the American treatment list?
What you mean, there isn't one?

Wow, you don't charge people when they are going to die? How humane!
Unfortunately this does not cover a variety of other things such as long term cancer treatment and transplants. You still have to pay for these things, and in a supposedly civilised country - to base standard of healthcare of wealth is ridiculous. Health, is not a priviledge, it is a right. And therefore the state should pay - as it does in Western Europe.


Yes, lets listen to John Pilger, who believes that the U.S. staged 9/11.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who sees the U.S. as more of a threat than the terrorists in Iraq.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who blames the U.N.'s sactions against Iraq for the deaths there.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who blames the Australians for not loving all the refugees flooding in.
Lets listen to John Pilger, who loves nothing better than to enter his readers with tales of the icky U.S.
Lets listen to John Pilger, conspiracy theorist, sensationalist, fraud.
Lets listen to John Pilger.

Perhaps you are faltering, or perhaps not. But one thing is for certain, you aren't making many valid points anymore. And some of the things in the above post are hilarious, you, sarcastically, claim that the US is not as bad a threat to World peace as the 'terrorists' in Iraq, and that The UN's sanctions did not cause deaths. Which unfortunately for your case is wrong, as it was the Clinton Administration which effectively banned any type of healthcare material from entering the country - in his list of 'terrorist states' in '97, and that deaths in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands were proven by numerous Independant Medical Inquiries from numerous countries, including your own. This list of 'terrorist states' included Cuba as well, but we will draw upon that later.

You also strike me as one of the Coulter 'Thinkers' (if you can stretch the definition of the word to that point) - who believes that that critiscm of the US instantly equates to being 'Anti-American' and that people who do this must be deprived of thier free speech for the greater good.

So it is a single incident and it isn't a single incident.
Using "actually" in midstatement reveals that, actually, you spoke before you thought and need to backtrack a bit.

Again, a valid counter-point was not made, so I'm going to assume you conceded that point. Incidentally, as I said, the crimes against people of that certain neighbourhood continued long through the Somoza reign.

It proves that he wanted to be "kept up to date of everything that was occuring."
I'd say that demanding information from your man in the field might somehow imply that said man was being somewhat less than candid or regualar with his reports. If this is true it shoots your argument against Reagan about the contras straight to Hell (at the time a Reagan free one, might I add), does it not?

Again, no evidence was given to counter my point apart from rhetoric, by the laws of just debating, I'm going to assume you conceded that point as well. And as I have proven many times before - Reagan specifically gave the order to Casey to attack 'Soft Targets', this is undisputed, whether it was Reagan's idea, or his Administration, is another matter - though it was most likely thought up inside Top Level at the CIA. Also undisputed is the fact the Contra's were committing crimes in Nicaragua, since it was widely documented by many South American Journalists - to say that he didn't know is ridiculous, as it assumes he doesn't even know what is in South American newspapers.

"The Congress understood the criminality of Reagan’s illegal war, that’s why they passed the Bolin amendment that forbade him from arming the Contras (the remnants of former dictator Antonio Somosa’s brutal security apparatus) and sending them back into Nicaragua to attack “soft targets”; a CIA euphemism for infrastructure."

Celebrating Murder: The Reagan Funeral


So, at first you said that Reagan gave "official orders to attack what are called soft targets."
Now he merely "knew about the order to attack soft targers"?

No, Reagan gave the order, as I explained above

No, it wasn't valid. It was vetoed and never became an official resolution. Maybe the U.S. had reasons like, oh I dunno, sadinista brutality to cause the U.S. to have to stay involved.

Funny you should keep on bringing up this 'Sadinista Brutality', although it is widely documented by many modern Historians, including Dr. David Starkey, that 'Sadinista Brutality' was simply a propoganda tool invented by The CIA. As Demonstrated in thier freeing of over 7000 National Guard Members and other members of the Somoza regime, because they 'did not have enough evidence to convict them'.

"It is also undisputed that the Sandinistas released hundreds of captured National Guardsmen for lack of evidence that they had committed crimes against the Nicaraguan people, and that many of those same men later joined President Reagan's "freedom fighters" (commonly called "contras," and led by Guard officers who had escaped to Honduras). After returning to Nicaragua their revenge took the form of just such crimes, or worse, as they had earlier been acquitted of.(1)"

Somoza's, Sadinistas, Contras and us

Public service reforms like robbing the people? Reforms about how people were executed perhaps? They seized the land from the peasants as well as seizing all industry and commerce (even foriegn owned property).

You seem to be a great spouter of rhetoric, but a terrible purveyor of the facts. To put it simply, you cannot back anything up, these 'Sadinista Executions' are so far backed up by.... One source of yours? Hmm.

You can't use a wword in its own definition. Try again.

You understood perfectly well what I meant, understandable means there was a reason behind the act itself that could be justified. Such as 9/11, but also like 9/11, the act itself was far from justifiable (by that I mean the Twin Tower Attacks, it could be argued the Pentagon attacks were justified.)

They didn't want the somozas back, but they didn't want the sadinistas either. It was the same policy that when the czars were butchered in Russia, or maybe you were in favor of the children being killed?
Aside, you find killing people based on their associations funny, do you?
I don't see why I should provide unbiaased sources when your own wear their bias on their sleeves, don't support your case when held up to the light of day or in one case, don't even agree with your arguments.

Oh but you orginally said they did want them back, whose 'backtracking now eh, or was it just a typo :D ?
You seem to be able to jump to numerous assumptions in the space of, 4 or 5 lines! I myself find this fascinating, as the 'assumptions' are usually personal attacks on myself, or unsubstantiated rhetoric, much like Reagan.

No, those are two sources that you can puruse as you like. Two out of eleven (thats less than 20%, so you don't have to hurt yourself thinking), by the by.
Of these websites: CNN, wikipedia.com, encyclopedia.com, the Yale Free Press, and others.
You havwe produced books and accounts from obviously biased authors (often the same obviously biased authors) as well as facts that, while they may be true, are far from inciminating.

Numerous spelling mistakes again, anyway, aside from you obvious lack of eloquence, you have yet again failed to make a valid point. I have read many works by Right Wing 'Thinkers' (as they call them) but they usually descend into personal attacks (much like yourself) against Left Wing authors within 4 or 5 pages. I have read some good works by Right Wing economists, who actually present a valid point and case (though I disagree with them), though I have yet to find a Right-Wing author on the subject of World Affairs who offers factual evidence rather than the old 'WE FOUGHT COMMUNISM AND WON!' justification for everything.

I asked you for accomplishments (aside from some truly spectacular economic wrecks) that came out of socialism. You, instead, simply whine about bias.

Western Europe is largely socialist (as Eastern Europe is becoming too), but I fail to see any 'economic wrecks' in Western Europe. On the contrary, I see successful nations.

You are right the media is biased, but you are completely wrong about the direction.

Oh, the old 'The media is owned by lefties!' argument. I think the mere notion that this is true makes me laugh. Media is owned by corporations and I have yet to see any of these 'left wing' Corporate entities that actually pursue real left wing iniatives, such as preserving Worker's Rights within thier corporation. Thus I believe Corporations are always bias to the right; be it John Kerry or George Bush - They don't offer any real change, they are simply two sides of the same coporate coin.

Exactly, the sadinistas set out to seize control of the country. They used the excuse of terrorists to do it (a lot the current war on terrorism).

No, The Sadinistas had widespread support among the people. This is indisputable, as it the fact the people hated the Contras and the Somozas. The Sadinistas won the '84 election, administered over by UN member nations, with 62% of the vote (a lot more than your current President). Although no other UN Member nation who was administering the vote (America was not administering it) offered no complaints to the result, The Americans did. I wonder what they based this on if they were not overseeing it......

Wait just a tick here! You aer now siting a search engine as a source? And you would fault my credibility!

You asked for proof of a Historical fact, surprised by this, I used what I considered to be an encyclopaedia based site. Rather than an article or Interview based on one side of the line or another.

I find it hard to buy the idea that a leader of MILPAS would refer to his group as the "contras". Also, I doubt anyone sets out to win a popularity contest by making themselves into bigger ass-hats then the other guy.
Further, well I'll let Oscar Manuel Sobalvarro, chief of staff of the contras talk:
I started [fighting] on March 20, 1980, with hunting rifles. My purpose in fighting the Sandinista Front at that time was not to wage war against them but to convey to the Sandinista government the message that the peasants and many other Nicaraguans did not agree with [the introduction of] new things which were alien to the way of life that we knew, and that if what they were trying to do was to implant a totalitarian communist regime, well, we weren't going to agree to that. And that's how we began the struggle. Initially we were a group of 15 young men, and then it grew to 30, and I was one of the leaders and main promoters of the group.
Did I mention that he was one of those non-existant ex-peasants?

We have in what I explained in my preivous thread (with many accounts), irrefutable proof that the Contras partook in mass murder - Sobalvarro is a interesting character as well, largely influenced in his beliefs by his father (who seemed to contradict himself all the time), Solbalvarro himself obviously has a guilty conscience about what he did - when he attacked Union Strikers with other Contra members. 'Exchanging fire' is how the US Government put it
at the time - except they neglected to mention that the Union Striker's had no weapons to return fire with. Sobalvarro is quite simply a dog, members of The Contras were sometimes scared into joining by a simple roughing up, and other times via threat of murder.

What we have here is Sobalvarro trying to alleviate some guilt by portraying himself as a freedom fighter. Equally disgusting is how the supposedly 'left wing' CNN does not press him over any of the issues such as mass murder and other abuses of human rights. Why didn't CNN ask him about the slit throats of the dead mothers and children, the bomb blasts in civilian areas, the orders to attack soft targets and the murders of those opposing thier beliefs to the admissions of guilt by several ex-Contra members?

Yes, very... 'left wing'.

As Chamorro put it himself after giving testimony to the World Court:
"Then a string of bought journalists from the U.S. media are lined up for interviews about the wonderful "democratic resistance." It's almost like Ngo Dinh Diem and Vietnam all over again."


Yes, very strange. I am refering, of course, to the fact that you find it unusual that a group that have been supreme dictators of the area for seven years would win the government.
Further, have you ever paid attention to the U.N.? They couldn't oversee a bakesale.

Again, The UN simply selected a group of nations to oversee it, Furthermore, these nations ruled the elections were 'free and fair'. As demonstrated below.

"The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984, validated as "free and fair" by international observers, but rejected by the US. American pressure against the government escalated including attacks on Nicaraguan ports and oil installations (September 1983-March 1984) and the laying of magnetic mines outside Nicaraguan harbours (early 1984) as well as the , actions condemned as illegal (June 27, 1986) by the International Court of Justice. The U.S. refused to pay restitution and simply claimed that the ICJ was not competent for the case. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine and included for 'all nations to abide by ICJ Rulings' (International Law). But although only Israel and El Salvador, which had also disputes with Nicaragua, voted with the U.S., the money still has not been paid. Nicaragua v. United States. On May 1, 1985 Reagan issued an executive order that imposed a complete economic embargo."

Appendix - The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas

So 44.6% of the country was pro somoza enough to have land? 44.6% can hardly be called elite.
Anyways, you are saying that they forced thos evil landowners to sign agreements with those who didn't own land? If anything, that sounds unfair to the land owners.
Finally, you continually make the contras out to be filthy rich capatilist dogs, but if nearly half the population of Nicagagua was filthy rich capatilist dogs, then how can they be elite?

Again, you twist what I said. I simply stated that land had been forced out of the hands of peasants under the Somoza's and given to those that they deemed worthy enough to thier cause - land reforms were actually supported by the Nicaraguan people - and this was one of the main reasons of the Sadinistas ascent to victory in '84 by a massive landslide. I never stated that *all* those who owned land were the 'elite'.

So they imposed land ownership on people? Well, if only the U.S. would start imposing ownership on me.
"Hajekistan, you will take that farm over there or there will be serious legal reprecussions!"

Land ownership in this case means that if there were not the correct legal documents stating that the peasants owned the land (most of them), the Somoza's could impose a situation whereby they would be a 'tenant', and effectively give this 'landlord' position to one of thier 'favoured' people.

I have yet to see anyone that says this.

They increased Government regulation of Government Owned Industry in all areas (Worker's rights and The Environment). This was one of the prime reasons for the praise from the World Bank.

They got people in unions because that made them easier to control. Once everyones in a union of some sort you don''t have to deal with individuals.

The Somoza's wished people to be 'easier to control', right? As they were a dictatorship. In that case why didn't the Somozas unionize everyone in the country? And instead, outlawed unions (much like Cuba).

If you control living costs, you cut down on retail profits. If you cut down on retail profits, you reduce the net profit involved in making basic necessities. If you reduce the net profit in making basic necessities, foriegn importers won't come to your country and local industry wil start to feel an uncomfortable pinch. If industry gets pinched, they'll go get money some other method.

Firstly trade was always harrassed by the Americans, as demonstrated in thier mining of harbours in 1984. And you don't need to explain every minute detail of economics to me, I have a brother who works as an economist for DeutscheBank. And if this is the case, as you claim, how comes Russia recieved more foreign Currency and hence exports went up as they nationalized inudstry firstly under Lenin, and then made it more efficient under Stalin through the 5 year Plans. How comes the Collectivization eventually increased production of wheat and grain by 78% from '33-'40?
Argument not water-tight? No worries :D

Which wwould be nice if the education requirements wasn't just a way of brain wasing the youth.

Proof?

Whats more on my behalf:

"A 1980 literacy campaign, using secondary school students as volunteer teachers, reduced the illiteracy rate from 50 percent to 23 percent of the total population."

Hegemony or Survival

"At the end of the Sandinista era, the literacy rate had declined from the level attained at the conclusion of the 1980 literacy campaign. Overall school enrollments were larger than they had been in the 1970s, and, especially in the countryside, access to education had broadened dramatically."

Hegemony or Survival

How could they abloish the death penalty, and execute everyone who had any connection to the old regime?

Once again, let me explain:

"It is also undisputed that the Sandinistas released hundreds of captured National Guardsmen for lack of evidence that they had committed crimes against the Nicaraguan people, and that many of those same men later joined President Reagan's "freedom fighters" (commonly called "contras," and led by Guard officers who had escaped to Honduras). After returning to Nicaragua their revenge took the form of just such crimes, or worse, as they had earlier been acquitted of.(1)"

And...

"In another country these men would have been long dead: the first act of a revolution is to eliminate its arch-enemies. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas were determined to put their humanitarian principles into practice from the first: the death penalty was abolished and 7,000 National Guard members were either released at the start (many fled to set up the Contras)."


Once again, I have seen nothing to indicate this happened.

And I have seen nothing to prove the 'revolutionaries' (aka Scum of the Earth) who attacked Castro's Cuba simply because there 'preferential' treatment under the Batista regime had ended. Oh my, next you'll be telling me Diem was loved by everyone.

And they set up the Nicaraguan Women's Association, an act preivously denied under the Somozas.

Well that makes it all all right does it? (We may have just commited a mass execution, but we've found out how to get power by burning the bodies)
It appears that the sadinistas were interestd in conserving everything, but their own people.

Here we go again! Back to the 'Sandinista brutality' - Strange how The Sandinistas:

In fulfillment of the terms of that negotiation, the Nicaraguan National Assembly unanimously passed an Autonomy Law in 1985 that made Nicaragua the first American nation to recognize its multiethnic nature, guaranteeing the economic, cultural, linguistic and religious rights demanded by the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast.

Seems pretty humane to me.

Only about 2/3s of the U.S. population agreed with him, that is such a minority! If everytime 1/3 of the U.S. population got upset with the government massive changes went into play, then their might as well not be a government.
Further, the British system is no better. You don't even elect your executive, he is picked by the parliament.

Erm, no we don't - What you just said was rubbish. The party with the majority of MP's wins. And leaders are selected by members of the party (anyone can join). To say the American system of 'Electoral Colleges' is more democratic is almost laughable. Weren't they even thinking of banning Fahrenheit 9/11, and don't they constantly debate in The Senate about whether it is 'ethical' to burn the flag? - How far behind are you?

And just for the record, a Gallup poll 3 years into Reagan's first term showed that 67% disagreed with his interior policies. This perfectly highlights the fact that we have nothing more than a spectators role in a President's term(s). We cannot challenge anything apart from the most trivial matters at a local level, and even then it is near impossible to change anything.

And this 'intelligent debate' coming from somebody who stated that they 'didn't care' that the Contras had no Political Policy, and that this was because they only wanted to 'see the end of the Sandinistas' - Out of the New Age of Democracy and into the Fire seems to strike a chord here.

Like you are with La Pensa?

Yes, like I am with La Pensa, I pointed out a valid fact and you could not take it, admit to it.

Who was delivering this healthcare and these innoculations? Half of Cuba's doctors fled when Castro took over.
Do you know why Cubas sanctions are so tough now? I think it has somthing to do with an incident a few years back when the Cuban military shot a plane out of the sky.
Cuba is not in such trouble becuase of U.S. sanctions, that is all bull.


In many poor countries, infectious diseases and malnutrition are the biggest killers. But Cuba's vaccination program — Cuban children get 13 vaccinations — prevents those diseases. In Cuba, heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death, the same as in the USA.

USA Today

The embargo came under considerable domestic criticism as well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists tell a different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the embargo had severe health effects, and only Cuba's "remarkable health care system" had prevented a "humanitarian catastrophe"; this has received virtually no mention in the US.

Hegemony or Survival

So the mere fact that there is an eagle on a webpage invalidates all information it might hold?

What information?

It's a student, and a patriotic one at that visiting Nicaragua a total of one times.

Political Journals probably say contra (revealing a bias against MILPAS) and so are right out.

Political Journals are less of a source for Information than a Student who visited Nicaragua recently? Hey, I've visisted America all of.... 4 Times! Thats means I know everything about segregation in the 60's! :D

Finally, since when does patriotism inherently invalidate your arguments?
Are you willfully that stupid?

FOX News is 'patriotic', so is George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet all thier ideas on 'patriotism' are distorted. For them patriotism is not questioning anything the Government says, and taking them on trust (if you are that stupid). This is what patriotism has metamorphized into, these days, Vietnam Veterans who didn't like seeing little children getting napalmed to death are 'unpatriotic' as are 'anti-War protestors' and who can forget the claim that it is 'unpatriotic to not support our boys'.

If by some extraordinary stroke of luck this naive youngster was patriotic in the sense that he questioned what his Government did (highly unlikely considering the lengths gone to to indoctrinate children) - then I concede that point. But as I say again, his idea of 'patriotism' is exactly the same as Bush and Rumsfeld's, that is to say "Patriotism means - NO QUESTIONS!"

I have noted many more Websites (none of which are Noam sources) and a medical journal. Further, if you bothered to read any of my sources you would note quotes from interviews (one of them was, in fact, an interview) with people who were oppossed to the sadinistas.
[/Quote]
That CNN Interview was a good piece of humour I'll admit (as they didn't challenge him over any of his crimes). Though it was an interesting insight into American media, an pretty much confirmed for me the point below:

"Then a string of bought journalists from the U.S. media are lined up for interviews about the wonderful "democratic resistance." It's almost like Ngo Dinh Diem and Vietnam all over again."

Nazi Weaponized Virus aka Tourkophagos aka Proud Socialists, do you just love getting banned?
Do you posssess an irrisistable need to keep coming back and then getting thrown off by the mods?
I am too tired to reply to all of your crap now, and so will have to do so later (probably 24 to 48 hours). In the meantime I shall leave you with a preview:
Yes, like I am with La Pensa, I pointed out a valid fact and you could not take it, admit to it.
No, I pointed out that La Pensa was censored and shut down by the sadinsitas. You then brought up something that had nothing to do with my comment (a murder allegedly commited by the somozas).
You don't want to believe that your beloved sadinistas could possibly do such a thing (which they did) and so have proceeded to ignore me and try to cover up your inability to argue the point by trying to overshadow the fact I brought up (that of the sadinistas shutting La Pensa down).
Wow, you don't charge people when they are going to die? How humane!
Unfortunately this does not cover a variety of other things such as long term cancer treatment and transplants. You still have to pay for these things, and in a supposedly civilised country - to base standard of healthcare of wealth is ridiculous. Health, is not a priviledge, it is a right. And therefore the state should pay - as it does in Western Europe.
We don't charge people if they are in urgent need (cardiac arrest, asthma, etc.)
Health care is not a right.
There is no such thing as a right to some else's services, time or resources. Announcing that health care is a right is the equivalent of enslaving them (health care professionals) all.
Further, there is such a thing as health insurance there is even government funded health insurance if you're too poor.
Finally, I have already said it, but it bears repeating. The NHS is a mess, some people will wait up to 9 months before seeing a doctor (By the end of nine months without seeing a doctor, its really to late. You have either died, suffered permanent damage of some kind or it wasn't that bad and you got over it), there is a waiting list of about 800,000 (While there is no such list in America) and the immigration service is having problems with people coming into the country, just to take advantage off the cheap service (I don't think America is suffering these problems, either).


Oh, I also find it intensly amusing that you simultaneously bitch about the obvious bias of the american corporate media and site sources like USA Today. You also seem to enjoy citing a source that reveals its hate in its title (Celebrating Murder: The Reagan Funeral being an example).
Although, that isn't nearly as good as the fact that while I have responded to everything you said (no matter how inane) you only reply when you have an easy answer. Even if I get a reply, you keep not answering the thrice-damned question.
Finally, when I said terrorists in Iraq I was refering too the modern imports. Like those nutjobs who wander around cutting off people's heads and making videos of it.

Nazi Weaponized Virus aka Tourkophagos aka Proud Socialists, do you just love getting banned?
Do you posssess an irrisistable need to keep coming back and then getting thrown off by the mods?
I am too tired to reply to all of your crap now, and so will have to do so later (probably 24 to 48 hours). In the meantime I shall leave you with a preview:

Lets leave the issue of my banning out of this. And ok, I understand that you are too tired to reply right now. I had the same feelings myself.

No, I pointed out that La Pensa was censored and shut down by the sadinsitas. You then brought up something that had nothing to do with my comment (a murder allegedly commited by the somozas).
You don't want to believe that your beloved sadinistas could possibly do such a thing (which they did) and so have proceeded to ignore me and try to cover up your inability to argue the point by trying to overshadow the fact I brought up (that of the sadinistas shutting La Pensa down).

The Sandinistas accused La Prensa of collabarating with the Contras due to Intelligence linking it with the 'counterevolutionaries' (if so, this was a justifiable action to take) and attacking the protests against La Prensa for its 'pro counterrevolutionary attitude' - moreover, La Prensa was only banned for one month. Until a deal which was beneficial to both sides was struck, and at no point were the lives of any of the members of the Newspaper's columnists or staff threatened (in fact after the deal the IAPA and Sandinistas struck a deal whereby more copies of the paper would come out. The Interior Minister (Tomas Borge) of Nicaragua always kept dialogue running between himself and Pedro Joaquin Chamorro.

The main issue though was:

"if La Prensa agreed to condemn the security guards for assaulting people who were peacefully protesting La Prensa's "counterrevolutionary attitude," the newspaper (still occupied by Sandinista police) would be returned to us and the security guards would not face trial."

Sound a little more humane than the Somozas and the Contras to me.

We don't charge people if they are in urgent need (cardiac arrest, asthma, etc.)
Health care is not a right.
There is no such thing as a right to some else's services, time or resources. Announcing that health care is a right is the equivalent of enslaving them (health care professionals) all.
Further, there is such a thing as health insurance there is even government funded health insurance if you're too poor.
Finally, I have already said it, but it bears repeating. The NHS is a mess, some people will wait up to 9 months before seeing a doctor (By the end of nine months without seeing a doctor, its really to late. You have either died, suffered permanent damage of some kind or it wasn't that bad and you got over it), there is a waiting list of about 800,000 (While there is no such list in America) and the immigration service is having problems with people coming into the country, just to take advantage off the cheap service (I don't think America is suffering these problems, either).

Nobody has to wait until 9 months to see a Doctor - Its 3 days at the most, and GP numbers have risen massively.

Thats operation waiting lists you are quoting.

And Healthcare is a right. Why should the son of a rich man be more entitled to good healthcare than the son of a poor man? Why should he be at more risk of dying than the rich man's son, simply because one of thier father's was more successful. Simple as this, you pay for your healthcare system, and you pay top dollar. Here in Europe, we don't pay anything, because we care about everyone, regardless of how much thier father earnt (putting them in a better position for life - no such thing as 'equal opportunity') - Healthcare is a right. A basic human right.

Say what you like about the NHS, its getting better, it will continue to get better, and its already the pride of Britain. You go into the NHS - you could be a 6 figure sum earner or the guy who cleans the streets. The Class Divide that has dissapated in Britain could not be more noticeable than the America of today, where some inner city have the equivalent average standard of living of third World Countries. If that's America, then fuck it. I'll stick with Britain.

Oh, I also find it intensly amusing that you simultaneously bitch about the obvious bias of the american corporate media and site sources like USA Today. You also seem to enjoy citing a source that reveals its hate in its title (Celebrating Murder: The Reagan Funeral being an example).
Although, that isn't nearly as good as the fact that while I have responded to everything you said (no matter how inane) you only reply when you have an easy answer. Even if I get a reply, you keep not answering the thrice-damned question.
Finally, when I said terrorists in Iraq I was refering too the modern imports. Like those nutjobs who wander around cutting off people's heads and making videos of it.

Again, you asked for what is commonly known as historical fact. I gave you a source you would believe, rather than the sources that you treat with contempt.

And the 'Celebrating Murder' Article is a good article in my eyes. It points out the many faces of Modern America, and how it does it's best to cover some of them up. Much better than the 'I'm a patriot!' student from Yale :D

And those 'nutjobs' aren't in any way affiliated with Osama Bin Laden. Most of them are just little groups like 'The Lions of Allah' or 'Jihad Now'. To say somebody 'has a link to Osama Bin Laden' these days, could mean anything from they met him to commissioning a project off of the family business.

Lets leave the issue of my banning out of this. And ok, I understand that you are too tired to reply right now. I had the same feelings myself.

The Sandinistas accused La Prensa of collabarating with the Contras due to Intelligence linking it with the 'counterevolutionaries' (if so, this was a justifiable action to take) and attacking the protests against La Prensa for its 'pro counterrevolutionary attitude' - moreover, La Prensa was only banned for one month. Until a deal which was beneficial to both sides was struck, and at no point were the lives of any of the members of the Newspaper's columnists or staff threatened (in fact after the deal the IAPA and Sandinistas struck a deal whereby more copies of the paper would come out. The Interior Minister (Tomas Borge) of Nicaragua always kept dialogue running between himself and Pedro Joaquin Chamorro.

The main issue though was:

"if La Prensa agreed to condemn the security guards for assaulting people who were peacefully protesting La Prensa's "counterrevolutionary attitude," the newspaper (still occupied by Sandinista police) would be returned to us and the security guards would not face trial."

Sound a little more humane than the Somozas and the Contras to me.

Nobody has to wait until 9 months to see a Doctor - Its 3 days at the most, and GP numbers have risen massively.

Thats operation waiting lists you are quoting.

And Healthcare is a right. Why should the son of a rich man be more entitled to good healthcare than the son of a poor man? Why should he be at more risk of dying than the rich man's son, simply because one of thier father's was more successful. Simple as this, you pay for your healthcare system, and you pay top dollar. Here in Europe, we don't pay anything, because we care about everyone, regardless of how much thier father earnt (putting them in a better position for life - no such thing as 'equal opportunity') - Healthcare is a right. A basic human right.

Say what you like about the NHS, its getting better, it will continue to get better, and its already the pride of Britain. You go into the NHS - you could be a 6 figure sum earner or the guy who cleans the streets. The Class Divide that has dissapated in Britain could not be more noticeable than the America of today, where some inner city have the equivalent average standard of living of third World Countries. If that's America, then fuck it. I'll stick with Britain.


Again, you asked for what is commonly known as historical fact. I gave you a source you would believe, rather than the sources that you treat with contempt.

And the 'Celebrating Murder' Article is a good article in my eyes. It points out the many faces of Modern America, and how it does it's best to cover some of them up. Much better than the 'I'm a patriot!' student from Yale :D

And those 'nutjobs' aren't in any way affiliated with Osama Bin Laden. Most of them are just little groups like 'The Lions of Allah' or 'Jihad Now'. To say somebody 'has a link to Osama Bin Laden' these days, could mean anything from they met him to commissioning a project off of the family business.
the people should get the same health care that republican hypocrites in congress reward themselves with

Reagan was mostly just a myth

Yeah those old stories arent true.

I wish Reagan was assasinated in office. Seriously, I hate(d) that man.

Before I start, I will acknowlege the fact that NWV aka Proud Socialists is no longer on the board. I am responding anyway, as he will turn up in a few days under another name and carry on arguing. Further, I am not responding to the part in my little preview, as they would normally be made here.

Perhaps you are faltering, or perhaps not. But one thing is for certain, you aren't making many valid points anymore. And some of the things in the above post are hilarious, you, sarcastically, claim that the US is not as bad a threat to World peace as the 'terrorists' in Iraq, and that The UN's sanctions did not cause deaths. Which unfortunately for your case is wrong, as it was the Clinton Administration which effectively banned any type of healthcare material from entering the country - in his list of 'terrorist states' in '97, and that deaths in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands were proven by numerous Independant Medical Inquiries from numerous countries, including your own. This list of 'terrorist states' included Cuba as well, but we will draw upon that later.
I already made my point about the terrorists, but I would lik to point out that I was refering to Osama, the PLO, Zack Musawi (or something like that), etc. And the Clinton administration didn't control Europe, Asia or Australia. He hardly controlled the U.S. and had no power over Canada.
However, if that wonderful U.N. that you trust so much were to have done it, well than it would hardly have been the U.S.'s fault and the blame would reside on France, Britain, Russia, etc., etc. as well.
Further, the Oil for Food Program allowed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food necessary to buy basic anemneites.
Additionally, Saddam, instead of using his resources to alleviate his people's suffering, enjoyed a playboy life style. He appropriated the resources of his people, if sanctions had been fully lifted he would have taken those resources too.

You also strike me as one of the Coulter 'Thinkers' (if you can stretch the definition of the word to that point) - who believes that that critiscm of the US instantly equates to being 'Anti-American' and that people who do this must be deprived of thier free speech for the greater good.
Except for the fact that you are, in fact, anti-american.
You "understand" and "justify" 9/11.
You "justify" the bombing of the U.S.S. Coal.
You look for every single reason to talk of how evil America, its presidents, it barabaric nature, its capitilism, most of its people and its actions are.
I'd say thats pretty anti-American, British imperialist slime.

Again, a valid counter-point was not made, so I'm going to assume you conceded that point. Incidentally, as I said, the crimes against people of that certain neighbourhood continued long through the Somoza reign.
A neighborhood that supported the sadinistas.
Anyway, you're right, it was an assholeish kind of thing to do.
However, you don't seem to want to mention the fact that managua was the capital of the sadinsitas.

Again, no evidence was given to counter my point apart from rhetoric, by the laws of just debating, I'm going to assume you conceded that point as well. And as I have proven many times before - Reagan specifically gave the order to Casey to attack 'Soft Targets',
WHERE!?!
All you have done is produce a memo that said that Reagan wanted to be kept up to speed on what was happening. You have never proved a single damned thing other than the fact that Reagan didn't feel he was getting the right info fast enough.

this is undisputed, whether it was Reagan's idea, or his Administration, is another matter - though it was most likely thought up inside Top Level at the CIA. Also undisputed is the fact the Contra's were committing crimes in Nicaragua, since it was widely documented by many South American Journalists - to say that he didn't know is ridiculous, as it assumes he doesn't even know what is in South American newspapers.

"The Congress understood the criminality of Reagan’s illegal war, that’s why they passed the Bolin amendment that forbade him from arming the Contras (the remnants of former dictator Antonio Somosa’s brutal security apparatus) and sending them back into Nicaragua to attack “soft targets”; a CIA euphemism for infrastructure."
Wow, I was right. Now you are saying that someone in the administration or the top of the CIA (two different groups, just so you know) must have ordered the attacks.
Further, you assume that Reagan was reading South American newspapers as a regular hobby, that those news papers are more trustworthy than the icky U.S. ones and that Reagan would have trusted those South American newspapers.
Finally, your above quote says that "soft targets" are infrastructure (aka power plants, roads, prisons, etc.). Yet, you have earlier said that "soft targets" are civilian areas (implying the widescale slaughtering of civilians and burning OBGYNs to the ground).

No, Reagan gave the order, as I explained above
You have explained that he may have known about the orders, that someone else in his administration may have given the orders or that a head honcho of the CIA gave the order.
You have actually proven that Reagan wanted to know about a program and what was going on with it. From that, in an almost Chomskyesk logical leap, you assumed that Reagan gave the order for the CIA to eat babies.

Funny you should keep on bringing up this 'Sadinista Brutality', although it is widely documented by many modern Historians, including Dr. David Starkey, that 'Sadinista Brutality' was simply a propoganda tool invented by The CIA. As Demonstrated in thier freeing of over 7000 National Guard Members and other members of the Somoza regime, because they 'did not have enough evidence to convict them'.

"It is also undisputed that the Sandinistas released hundreds of captured National Guardsmen for lack of evidence that they had committed crimes against the Nicaraguan people, and that many of those same men later joined President Reagan's "freedom fighters" (commonly called "contras," and led by Guard officers who had escaped to Honduras). After returning to Nicaragua their revenge took the form of just such crimes, or worse, as they had earlier been acquitted of.(1)"

Somoza's, Sadinistas, Contras and us
It could be said that the sadinistas needed an excuse to become absolute dictators and felt the need to create and enemy by releasing the National Guard.

You seem to be a great spouter of rhetoric, but a terrible purveyor of the facts. To put it simply, you cannot back anything up, these 'Sadinista Executions' are so far backed up by.... One source of yours? Hmm.
And your own confession that the sadinistas killed all the somozas they could get their hands on.

You understood perfectly well what I meant, understandable means there was a reason behind the act itself that could be justified. Such as 9/11, but also like 9/11, the act itself was far from justifiable (by that I mean the Twin Tower Attacks, it could be argued the Pentagon attacks were justified.)
So 9/11 was justifiable, but it wasn't justifiable. Why are we even arguing about 9/11, oh yes, beause you brought it up.
Anyway, if I knew what you meant while you were bein intentionally vague, then I would be reading your mind and we wouldn't need to type so much. We would just type
"Contra"
"Contra"
"Sadinista"
"Ass-hat"
And be done with it all.

Oh but you orginally said they did want them back, whose 'backtracking now eh, or was it just a typo :D ?
You seem to be able to jump to numerous assumptions in the space of, 4 or 5 lines! I myself find this fascinating, as the 'assumptions' are usually personal attacks on myself, or unsubstantiated rhetoric, much like Reagan.
I said that some would want them back. You seem to feel the same way, considering that your argument against the revolutionaries who battle totaltarionistic socialist regimes is that they were a bunch of evil elite capatilist who wanted the old rulers back so they could go on being evil elite capatilists.

Numerous spelling mistakes again, anyway, aside from you obvious lack of eloquence, you have yet again failed to make a valid point. I have read many works by Right Wing 'Thinkers' (as they call them) but they usually descend into personal attacks (much like yourself) against Left Wing authors within 4 or 5 pages. I have read some good works by Right Wing economists, who actually present a valid point and case (though I disagree with them), though I have yet to find a Right-Wing author on the subject of World Affairs who offers factual evidence rather than the old 'WE FOUGHT COMMUNISM AND WON!' justification for everything.
Perhaps you just refuse to admit when you are wrong and I get frustrated at such purposeful ignorance and call it what it is?
You resorted to personal attacks immediatly, or was announcing that someone was in hell and that they were evil something else?
You didn't even make it to the second post before being an ass.

Western Europe is largely socialist (as Eastern Europe is becoming too), but I fail to see any 'economic wrecks' in Western Europe. On the contrary, I see successful nations.
Still no accomplishments produced by socialism? Come on, how about two? Just two, thats all. Two is a nice little number, its not big and calculating inducing like three is.

Oh, the old 'The media is owned by lefties!' argument. I think the mere notion that this is true makes me laugh. Media is owned by corporations and I have yet to see any of these 'left wing' Corporate entities that actually pursue real left wing iniatives, such as preserving Worker's Rights within thier corporation. Thus I believe Corporations are always bias to the right; be it John Kerry or George Bush - They don't offer any real change, they are simply two sides of the same coporate coin.
If so, why was the Iran-Contra scandal (as well as every hairball allegation against bush) covered on all the news shows?
Why didn't anyone of the Clinton's numerous crimes make it to the major news?
Or perhaps Clinton was too conservative for you?

No, The Sadinistas had widespread support among the people. This is indisputable, as it the fact the people hated the Contras and the Somozas. The Sadinistas won the '84 election, administered over by UN member nations, with 62% of the vote (a lot more than your current President). Although no other UN Member nation who was administering the vote (America was not administering it) offered no complaints to the result, The Americans did. I wonder what they based this on if they were not overseeing it......
How then did the contras get started?
If, as you are want to say, the contras weren't supported by the people, how did they get peasants to work for them?
You still have yet to answer for how an election where the sadinistas were the supreme dictators right before it (and after it), where divine mobs were used to assault the opposition and where the local paper was forced into the pocket of the rulers can be fair.
Further, what with your condemnation of U.N. sanctions, I would think that you would be forced to admit their incompetence.

You asked for proof of a Historical fact, surprised by this, I used what I considered to be an encyclopaedia based site. Rather than an article or Interview based on one side of the line or another.
An encyclopedia based site?
*cough*encyclopedia.com*cough*
If I cited Google (http://www.google.com) you would spend page upon page yelling about how a search engine can't be used as a source.
For one thing, you didn't point out which article/webpage/whatever that your quote came from.

We have in what I explained in my preivous thread (with many accounts), irrefutable proof that the Contras partook in mass murder - Sobalvarro is a interesting character as well, largely influenced in his beliefs by his father (who seemed to contradict himself all the time), Solbalvarro himself obviously has a guilty conscience about what he did - when he attacked Union Strikers with other Contra members. 'Exchanging fire' is how the US Government put it
at the time - except they neglected to mention that the Union Striker's had no weapons to return fire with. Sobalvarro is quite simply a dog, members of The Contras were sometimes scared into joining by a simple roughing up, and other times via threat of murder.
No source here, I wonder why. Although, this seems suspiciouly like my condemnation of John Pilger, except for the fact that you can't deny that what I said is true. While I offered examples as to Johnny Boys bias, you just made allegations about Sobalvarro.

What we have here is Sobalvarro trying to alleviate some guilt by portraying himself as a freedom fighter. Equally disgusting is how the supposedly 'left wing' CNN does not press him over any of the issues such as mass murder and other abuses of human rights. Why didn't CNN ask him about the slit throats of the dead mothers and children, the bomb blasts in civilian areas, the orders to attack soft targets and the murders of those opposing thier beliefs to the admissions of guilt by several ex-Contra members?
What we have here is a left wing moron trying to alleviate the fact that he is a know nothing British teenager by complaining about American meanness. Equally disgusting is how he continually whines when people don't immediatly concede to his views on the way the world is. Why doesn't he realize that he is making unfounded claims about human rights violations and is really being annoying.

As Chamorro put it himself after giving testimony to the World Court:
"Then a string of bought journalists from the U.S. media are lined up for interviews about the wonderful "democratic resistance." It's almost like Ngo Dinh Diem and Vietnam all over again."
So the entirety of South Vietnam was just evil capatilists who hated the entirety of North Vietnam was just a bunch of nice communists.

Again, The UN simply selected a group of nations to oversee it, Furthermore, these nations ruled the elections were 'free and fair'. As demonstrated below.
"The Sandinistas were victorious in the national election of November 4, 1984, validated as "free and fair" by international observers, but rejected by the US. American pressure against the government escalated including attacks on Nicaraguan ports and oil installations (September 1983-March 1984) and the laying of magnetic mines outside Nicaraguan harbours (early 1984) as well as the , actions condemned as illegal (June 27, 1986) by the International Court of Justice. The U.S. refused to pay restitution and simply claimed that the ICJ was not competent for the case. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution in order to pressure the U.S. to pay the fine and included for 'all nations to abide by ICJ Rulings' (International Law). But although only Israel and El Salvador, which had also disputes with Nicaragua, voted with the U.S., the money still has not been paid. Nicaragua v. United States. On May 1, 1985 Reagan issued an executive order that imposed a complete economic embargo."


Again, you twist what I said. I simply stated that land had been forced out of the hands of peasants under the Somoza's and given to those that they deemed worthy enough to thier cause - land reforms were actually supported by the Nicaraguan people - and this was one of the main reasons of the Sadinistas ascent to victory in '84 by a massive landslide. I never stated that *all* those who owned land were the 'elite'.
Yes, you did. You said that the land was owned by the rich pro-somoza elite land owners. You said that peasants didn't own land, and were all happy with the sadinistas. Now you are admitting that some of the land owners who were robbed might have been peasants.

Land ownership in this case means that if there were not the correct legal documents stating that the peasants owned the land (most of them), the Somoza's could impose a situation whereby they would be a 'tenant', and effectively give this 'landlord' position to one of thier 'favoured' people.
So, if you didn't have the deed proving that land was legally yours, then it wasn't legally yours?

They increased Government regulation of Government Owned Industry in all areas (Worker's rights and The Environment). This was one of the prime reasons for the praise from the World Bank.
So, you and the World Bank are praising them for taking over everything. Might I mention that the World Bank liked the Julius Nyerere who made Tanzania the mess that it is today?

The Somoza's wished people to be 'easier to control', right? As they were a dictatorship. In that case why didn't the Somozas unionize everyone in the country? And instead, outlawed unions (much like Cuba).
The somozas wished that the people would just leave them alone, give them money and not talk about how bad they were.

Firstly trade was always harrassed by the Americans, as demonstrated in thier mining of harbours in 1984. And you don't need to explain every minute detail of economics to me, I have a brother who works as an economist for DeutscheBank. And if this is the case, as you claim, how comes Russia recieved more foreign Currency and hence exports went up as they nationalized inudstry firstly under Lenin, and then made it more efficient under Stalin through the 5 year Plans. How comes the Collectivization eventually increased production of wheat and grain by 78% from '33-'40?
If you had an economist brother, then maybe you should know the laws of supply in demand. Further, the 5 Year Plans were a joke unworthy of response.

Proof?

Whats more on my behalf:

"A 1980 literacy campaign, using secondary school students as volunteer teachers, reduced the illiteracy rate from 50 percent to 23 percent of the total population."

Hegemony or Survival

"At the end of the Sandinista era, the literacy rate had declined from the level attained at the conclusion of the 1980 literacy campaign. Overall school enrollments were larger than they had been in the 1970s, and, especially in the countryside, access to education had broadened dramatically."

Hegemony or Survival
I might point out that I have already done so.
I might say "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."
I might point out the fact that you are, again, relying completely on Noam Chomsky for information.

Once again, let me explain:

"It is also undisputed that the Sandinistas released hundreds of captured National Guardsmen for lack of evidence that they had committed crimes against the Nicaraguan people, and that many of those same men later joined President Reagan's "freedom fighters" (commonly called "contras," and led by Guard officers who had escaped to Honduras). After returning to Nicaragua their revenge took the form of just such crimes, or worse, as they had earlier been acquitted of.(1)"

And...

"In another country these men would have been long dead: the first act of a revolution is to eliminate its arch-enemies. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas were determined to put their humanitarian principles into practice from the first: the death penalty was abolished and 7,000 National Guard members were either released at the start (many fled to set up the Contras)."

You have now repeated a source to try to fool someone into believing that you have more sources than you do have.

And I have seen nothing to prove the 'revolutionaries' (aka Scum of the Earth) who attacked Castro's Cuba simply because there 'preferential' treatment under the Batista regime had ended. Oh my, next you'll be telling me Diem was loved by everyone.
Once again, you are assuming that they died trying to bring back Batisita.
You try to do this because you don't want to believe that Castro was an ass and is generally unloved.
Finally, if thy were the wealthy elite, why would they die trying to go back?
If I were a wealthy elite I'd just live in America, because (as you have so eloquently pointed out) America is the perfect place for elitist dogs to live.

And they set up the Nicaraguan Women's Association, an act preivously denied under the Somozas.
And I can have the Hajekisan Association, it doesn't make my lot much better. I'm still arguing with you, you're still being a putz whose arguments don't maake sense and my dog will still crap on the floor.

Here we go again! Back to the 'Sandinista brutality' - Strange how The Sandinistas:

In fulfillment of the terms of that negotiation, the Nicaraguan National Assembly unanimously passed an Autonomy Law in 1985 that made Nicaragua the first American nation to recognize its multiethnic nature, guaranteeing the economic, cultural, linguistic and religious rights demanded by the indigenous groups of the Atlantic Coast.

Seems pretty humane to me.
And moving all the natives to relocation camps and then bruning down their villages, I suppose that was jsut another step toward multiethnicity?

Erm, no we don't - What you just said was rubbish. The party with the majority of MP's wins. And leaders are selected by members of the party (anyone can join). To say the American system of 'Electoral Colleges' is more democratic is almost laughable.
You're right, the majority should have the exclusive rights to smack the minority around.

Weren't they even thinking of banning Fahrenheit 9/11,
Uh . . . no, only in the world of Michael Moore. He wanted F911 to get banned because that would give him popularity.

and don't they constantly debate in The Senate about whether it is 'ethical' to burn the flag? - How far behind are you?
Exept for the fact that that makes no sense.
I could go burn the U.S. flag right now, if I felt so inclined.

And just for the record, a Gallup poll 3 years into Reagan's first term showed that 67% disagreed with his interior policies. This perfectly highlights the fact that we have nothing more than a spectators role in a President's term(s). We cannot challenge anything apart from the most trivial matters at a local level, and even then it is near impossible to change anything.
Gallup polls are famously unreliable.
Anyway, are you telling me, that at his very moment, Tony Blair could be kicked out if 51% of the population didn't want him?

And this 'intelligent debate' coming from somebody who stated that they 'didn't care' that the Contras had no Political Policy, and that this was because they only wanted to 'see the end of the Sandinistas' - Out of the New Age of Democracy and into the Fire seems to strike a chord here.
What democracy?
Even you have admitted that the sadinsitas seized power without getting anything even like a vote and that they didn't submit to anything that might even be called an election until they were forced.


In many poor countries, infectious diseases and malnutrition are the biggest killers. But Cuba's vaccination program — Cuban children get 13 vaccinations — prevents those diseases. In Cuba, heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death, the same as in the USA.

USA Today

The embargo came under considerable domestic criticism as well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists tell a different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the embargo had severe health effects, and only Cuba's "remarkable health care system" had prevented a "humanitarian catastrophe"; this has received virtually no mention in the US.

Hegemony or Survival
Except for the fact that I wouldn't rely on Castro to report on Castro's abilities.
And you site the patriotic (which means stupid) USA Today as a source.
You also site Noam (which means biased) as a source.
However, Noam admits that the Cuban embargo only hurts America. You can't accuse Cuban problems on the U.S., what about Europe? They're so wonderful, why aren't they helping the Cubans.

What information?

It's a student, and a patriotic one at that visiting Nicaragua a total of one times.
The information given, ass-hat.
Maybe arguing with morons like you is what causes bitterness?

Political Journals are less of a source for Information than a Student who visited Nicaragua recently? Hey, I've visisted America all of.... 4 Times! Thats means I know everything about segregation in the 60's! :D
Well, considering the fact that you seem to believe that you can judge Reagan Era politics, I'd ssay you feel that way.

FOX News is 'patriotic', so is George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Yet all thier ideas on 'patriotism' are distorted. For them patriotism is not questioning anything the Government says, and taking them on trust (if you are that stupid). This is what patriotism has metamorphized into, these days, Vietnam Veterans who didn't like seeing little children getting napalmed to death are 'unpatriotic' as are 'anti-War protestors' and who can forget the claim that it is 'unpatriotic to not support our boys'.[quote]
So you just go around branding random people with patriotism (which means stupid) because they don't bow down to Noam Chomsky.

[quote]If by some extraordinary stroke of luck this naive youngster was patriotic in the sense that he questioned what his Government did (highly unlikely considering the lengths gone to to indoctrinate children) - then I concede that point. But as I say again, his idea of 'patriotism' is exactly the same as Bush and Rumsfeld's, that is to say "Patriotism means - NO QUESTIONS!"
Except for the fact that he wasn't talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.
He also interviewed Nicaraguans and didn't just wander around making up things as he went about making his statement.

That CNN Interview was a good piece of humour I'll admit (as they didn't challenge him over any of his crimes). Though it was an interesting insight into American media, an pretty much confirmed for me the point below:

"Then a string of bought journalists from the U.S. media are lined up for interviews about the wonderful "democratic resistance." It's almost like Ngo Dinh Diem and Vietnam all over again."

Once again, repeating a source to make you look better founded.
Further, your contiinued assumtion that America means 'Stupid Conservative" is damned annoying, insulting, innacurate and reptitive to a point of excess.


Finally, why no comment on Taiwan?
If you are right and its the U.S.'s fault that Cuba is so screwed up, shouldn't Taiwan be in just as bad a shape. Perhaps worse as the Chinese are sorer about losing than the U.S. has been.

Indeed, using the word, 'God' and highlighting it makes you appear extremely witty. Though of course, this is sarcasm. I tolerate people like you on a humerous level. You offer no counter-arguments and merely try to please others with your total lack of intellect that makes you appear as a 'bufoon' type character.

Okay, I'm going to do something you haven't, and thats offer a counter argument.

I never made any pretenses about being 'God' I merely stated that through my beliefs as a Christian, and the Christian ethics such as compassion and forgiveness; I believed that Reagan would be rotting in Hell right now due to his complete contradiction of these Christian ethics. His illegal and despicable Wars upon Central America are an example of this - which resulted in the brutal murders of thousands (though Carter can be blamed for some of these situations as well). The man was also a hypocrite, like most Republicans he hid behind facade of Religion to protect his methods (which at times - such as the support for ex-National Guard leaders, were barbaric). Therefore it is my presumption that he is in Hell now.
Ron Reagan Jr. would disagree with you on the religion part.

I already made my point about the terrorists, but I would lik to point out that I was refering to Osama, the PLO, Zack Musawi (or something like that), etc. And the Clinton administration didn't control Europe, Asia or Australia. He hardly controlled the U.S. and had no power over Canada.
However, if that wonderful U.N. that you trust so much were to have done it, well than it would hardly have been the U.S.'s fault and the blame would reside on France, Britain, Russia, etc., etc. as well.
Further, the Oil for Food Program allowed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food necessary to buy basic anemneites.
Additionally, Saddam, instead of using his resources to alleviate his people's suffering, enjoyed a playboy life style. He appropriated the resources of his people, if sanctions had been fully lifted he would have taken those resources too.

Everyone acknowledges that the sanctions damaged the Iraqi people rather than Saddam himself. Furthermore, If Saddam did not care at all about his people - why were the sanctions progressed with if the only people they did damage, where the Iraqi people?

It's a case of 'bleeding them dry', as the Kaiser said at Verdun. Everyone realised that sanctions on such basic necessities as Medical supplies didn't damage Saddam, he could get whatever he wanted to if he needed it.


Except for the fact that you are, in fact, anti-american.
You "understand" and "justify" 9/11.
You "justify" the bombing of the U.S.S. Coal.
You look for every single reason to talk of how evil America, its presidents, it barabaric nature, its capitilism, most of its people and its actions are.
I'd say thats pretty anti-American, British imperialist slime.

Again, an Understandable reason behind the response does not equate to justifiable. And it's the USS Cole (not Coal - What kind of a stupid name is that?), and yes that attack was justified, US Support of the Yemeni Government, was, like most of thier actions, sickening. Ali Abdullah Saleh, The Yemeni President, is just another American puppet, who gives support for the 'War on Terror' to save his own position rather than listen to the vast majority of his people, who want nothing to do with these illegal Wars.

"The Yemeni government has also begun closing illegal Islamic fundamentalist schools and bringing hundreds of other schools under a national curriculum. In its crackdown on religious extremists, more than one-hundred Islamic religious students have been expelled from Yemen for visa violations."

(Basically Gives them an excuse to pursue their own agenda)

And I'm a researcher and an analyst, thats why I 'look for every single reason to talk of how evil America is' - Because I enjoy reading World Affair Books, Political Journals and other sources on the Internet. It's a hobby of mine, and it's come in handy when I give speeches to other members of the Liberal Democrats in my constituency.

Oh and I'm half British, half Greek Cypriot. But unlike you I don't give a damn what is said about the British Imperialist actions in the 19th and early 20th Centuries - I don't consider it part of my being 'patriotic' to support every disgusting action my country did. I find what the empire did, especially in areas such as India in the appalling way they 'put down' protests, despicable, and a lot of problems today are rooted in the mismanagement that preceeded the end of the British Empire - Kashmir and Kuwait are just two examples.


WHERE!?!
All you have done is produce a memo that said that Reagan wanted to be kept up to speed on what was happening. You have never proved a single damned thing other than the fact that Reagan didn't feel he was getting the right info fast enough.

Go onto any encyclopaedia based site, and you'll see that it is acknowledged Reagan gave the order. For example:

"There is evidence that Reagan's US administration incited the targeting of "soft" or civilian targets by Contra militants"


Further, you assume that Reagan was reading South American newspapers as a regular hobby, that those news papers are more trustworthy than the icky U.S. ones and that Reagan would have trusted those South American newspapers.
Finally, your above quote says that "soft targets" are infrastructure (aka power plants, roads, prisons, etc.). Yet, you have earlier said that "soft targets" are civilian areas (implying the widescale slaughtering of civilians and burning OBGYNs to the ground).

Soft targets in The Contra sense extends from Civilian areas to Infrastructure vital to civilian life. Both of these examples have been proven and I suggest you read up on this topic before simply citing Websites, because it's a proven fact.

You have explained that he may have known about the orders, that someone else in his administration may have given the orders or that a head honcho of the CIA gave the order.
You have actually proven that Reagan wanted to know about a program and what was going on with it. From that, in an almost Chomskyesk logical leap, you assumed that Reagan gave the order for the CIA to eat babies.

As from the quote I gave above, evidence suggests that Reagan gave the order. One of the reasons why Congress passed the Bolin Amendment in fact.

It could be said that the sadinistas needed an excuse to become absolute dictators and felt the need to create and enemy by releasing the National Guard.

Excuse me, could you explain that logic - and provide evidence for that conclusion? Most National Guard officers, as I said, were transported out of Nicaragua via Red Cross marked planes under the Carter Administration, Reagan later utilised these tools to make the Contras, or to be more specific, make the leadership element of the Contras.

So 9/11 was justifiable, but it wasn't justifiable. Why are we even arguing about 9/11, oh yes, beause you brought it up.

Again, what you fail to understand is that there was an 'understandable' reason why it happened, yet the response to this reason was not justifiable as it killed many civilians.

Still no accomplishments produced by socialism? Come on, how about two? Just two, thats all. Two is a nice little number, its not big and calculating inducing like three is.

Look at some of the Nordic states, I think you will find several accomplishments there.

"For the fourth year in a row, A United Nations study has ranked Norway as the best place to live in the World. The index ranks nations according to income, average life expectancy and education levels."

I don't need to remind you Norway is one of the most Socialist countries in Europe.

If so, why was the Iran-Contra scandal (as well as every hairball allegation against bush) covered on all the news shows?
Why didn't anyone of the Clinton's numerous crimes make it to the major news?
Or perhaps Clinton was too conservative for you?

You have hit the nail right on the head, Clinton was too Conservative for me, as most American President's have been (probably barring FDR). The American Political Spectrum is extremely far to the right - evident in it's almost completely free market. And it must also be considered that Foreign Policy changes very little from Administration to Administration, most still follow the basic principles of the Monroe Doctrine (but extend it to anywhere the US has economic interests), and the Truman Doctrine (But replace the 'containment' of Communism with other issues that they need to deal with to protect thier interests).

You still have yet to answer for how an election where the sadinistas were the supreme dictators right before it (and after it), where divine mobs were used to assault the opposition and where the local paper was forced into the pocket of the rulers can be fair.

The Sandinistas won a 'free and fair' election in '84 by a massive majority, to call them dictators is a little short sighted. And as I have explained, the 'local paper' was banned for approximately 1 Month.

No source here, I wonder why. Although, this seems suspiciouly like my condemnation of John Pilger, except for the fact that you can't deny that what I said is true. While I offered examples as to Johnny Boys bias, you just made allegations about Sobalvarro.

Everyone has bias leanings, to claim otherwise would be folly. You are bias, I am bias, everyone on this board is bias to an extent as everyone in this World is bias to an extent, it's a natural human trait dependant on circumstances and history.

What we have here is a left wing moron trying to alleviate the fact that he is a know nothing British teenager by complaining about American meanness. Equally disgusting is how he continually whines when people don't immediatly concede to his views on the way the world is. Why doesn't he realize that he is making unfounded claims about human rights violations and is really being annoying.

Nope, as a 'left wing moron' I would defend your right to free speech, even if I was disgusted with what you were saying.

So the entirety of South Vietnam was just evil capatilists who hated the entirety of North Vietnam was just a bunch of nice communists.

Please do some research on Diem, the man gave Political Positions to members of his family (which they frequently abused) and was hated by all the S. Vietnamese. Why do you think America did not push for Diem to allow free elections in the early 60's? Because pollings showed the Communists would win because the man was despised so much.

Yes, you did. You said that the land was owned by the rich pro-somoza elite land owners. You said that peasants didn't own land, and were all happy with the sadinistas. Now you are admitting that some of the land owners who were robbed might have been peasants.

Nope, as I explained, the ownership was based on an unfair 'tenant' situation.

So, if you didn't have the deed proving that land was legally yours, then it wasn't legally yours?

Dependant on the infrastructure of the country. I doubt even 5% of the land ttenants had 'legal ownership' to thier land as they were simple peasants who had probably lived there for generations.

So, you and the World Bank are praising them for taking over everything. Might I mention that the World Bank liked the Julius Nyerere who made Tanzania the mess that it is today?

Completely irrelevant to the situation. Africa is not South America - and the World Bank did not *like* him the IMF gave him a loan to increase the productivity and quantity of his export industry (largely foodstuffs), but as Africa became increasingly undercut by other areas of the globe, countries all across the impoverished continent suffered the same fate.

If you had an economist brother, then maybe you should know the laws of supply in demand. Further, the 5 Year Plans were a joke unworthy of response.

You mean an example you couldn't reply to?

I might point out the fact that you are, again, relying completely on Noam Chomsky for information.

Seeing as its primary indirect, I'm not relying on him.

You have now repeated a source to try to fool someone into believing that you have more sources than you do have.

No, it was relevant to more than one response.

Once again, you are assuming that they died trying to bring back Batisita.
You try to do this because you don't want to believe that Castro was an ass and is generally unloved.
Finally, if thy were the wealthy elite, why would they die trying to go back?
If I were a wealthy elite I'd just live in America, because (as you have so eloquently pointed out) America is the perfect place for elitist dogs to live.

No, they were Capitalists who benefited hugely under the Batista regime, Operation Mongoose reports also mention that they went under 'ideological training' (Missiles in Cuba: Kennedy, Kruschev, Castro and the 1962 Crisis) , take of that what you will.

And I can have the Hajekisan Association, it doesn't make my lot much better. I'm still arguing with you, you're still being a putz whose arguments don't maake sense and my dog will still crap on the floor.

Thats not really a substantiated counter-argument, as it just involves insulting me.

And moving all the natives to relocation camps and then bruning down their villages, I suppose that was jsut another step toward multiethnicity?

A crime, but nowhere near on the scale of the Somoza or Contra Crimes - and thier steps to rectify this mistake were steps in the right direction. The Somoza's never made any attempt to give the indigenous population along the Coast rights.

Uh . . . no, only in the world of Michael Moore. He wanted F911 to get banned because that would give him popularity.

Why would he want it banned - Wouldn't that mean less money ? It's proof that America isn't as 'free' as it claims to be if Films criticizing the Government's actions are nearly banned. Oh wait, it was right wasn't it? Yes, because it was in the interests of 'patriotism' - the greatest tool the right ever had.

Exept for the fact that that makes no sense.
I could go burn the U.S. flag right now, if I felt so inclined.

It doesn't rule out the fact that they still debate about it, and... Wait, it's in the interests of 'patriotism' again. Ahhh, that makes it all right.

Gallup polls are famously unreliable.
Anyway, are you telling me, that at his very moment, Tony Blair could be kicked out if 51% of the population didn't want him?

If enough Representatives rebelled (around 30%), there would be a vote of confidence, and thats not the point, we are talking about the need for more direct democracy in this issue.

What democracy?
Even you have admitted that the sadinsitas seized power without getting anything even like a vote and that they didn't submit to anything that might even be called an election until they were forced.

1984.

Except for the fact that I wouldn't rely on Castro to report on Castro's abilities.
And you site the patriotic (which means stupid) USA Today as a source.
You also site Noam (which means biased) as a source.
However, Noam admits that the Cuban embargo only hurts America. You can't accuse Cuban problems on the U.S., what about Europe? They're so wonderful, why aren't they helping the Cubans.

The EU doesn't include 'vital medical supplies' on it's embargo lists.

The information given, ass-hat.
Maybe arguing with morons like you is what causes bitterness?

Again, insulting, you do realise you are treading a very thin line. Correct?

Well, considering the fact that you seem to believe that you can judge Reagan Era politics, I'd ssay you feel that way.

Yes, it's everyones right to 'judge' someone or something by thier own substantiated opinions, its called free speech.

So you just go around branding random people with patriotism (which means stupid) because they don't bow down to Noam Chomsky.

We are now entering the rhetoric zone.

Did Noam ever ask anyone to 'bow down' to him? - In my dealings with him he has always been only too happy to help, posting long and informative replies to emails I send him as well as analysing and helping me when I send him essays on certain topics.

Furthermore, as always, you offer no valid counterargument.


Once again, repeating a source to make you look better founded.
Further, your contiinued assumtion that America means 'Stupid Conservative" is damned annoying, insulting, innacurate and reptitive to a point of excess.

No, as I explained, I repeated a source that was relevant to more than one issue. And how about your constant bringing up of a 'CNN Interview' in which the interviewer does not pressure Solbalvarro at all about the crimes committed by the Contras. It's like citing an autobiography as a valid source.

Finally, why no comment on Taiwan?
If you are right and its the U.S.'s fault that Cuba is so screwed up, shouldn't Taiwan be in just as bad a shape. Perhaps worse as the Chinese are sorer about losing than the U.S. has been.

The 'Taiwan Miracle Growth' is down to one thing. Foreign Investment and the attraction of it. Since they joined the WTO, the SEI offered very attractive incentives:

- 100% ownership;

- Appointment of foreign directors;

- Permission to remit funds in and out;

- Corporate tax of 25% (reducible to 20%);

- Five-year tax holidays in encouraged industries;

- Other tax breaks in R&D, customs duties and other areas; and

- Reduced withholding tax from 35% to 20%.

It is widely noted Taiwan has one of the relaxed Foreign Investment policies in the World. That's why it has such high economic growth. Though issues such as the Environment and Worker's rights come at a large cost.

This is to officially announce that I, Hajekistan, quit.
I am declaring a ceasefire with Whatever The Hell Your Latest Name Is Because You Keep Getting Banned For Being An Ass-Hat And Won't Just Go Away.
Neither of us has raised any new issues in the poast several posts and have instead merely insulted each other and complained about being insulted. When not bandying harsh words, we have simply belaboured the same points in excess of good sense.
Therefore, I will cosign to a ceasefire, under these terms:
I will make this post and go on with my life thinking that you are stupid and annoying.
You will read this post and go on with your life thinking that I am stupid, annoying and, worse yet, American (ugh).
I will make the obligatory comment about you just being stuck-up because a bunch of Americans (ugh) with little military training kicked your imperial behinds back to England.
You will make the obligatory comment about me just being a jerk because the closest thing America has produced to culture has been Walt Disney's frozen corpse.
I will make a refence to English food.
You will simply say the words "Carrot Top."
I will go read my scifi and say goodnight.

This is to officially announce that I, Hajekistan, quit.
I am declaring a ceasefire with Whatever The Hell Your Latest Name Is Because You Keep Getting Banned For Being An Ass-Hat And Won't Just Go Away.
Neither of us has raised any new issues in the poast several posts and have instead merely insulted each other and complained about being insulted. When not bandying harsh words, we have simply belaboured the same points in excess of good sense

No. I never insulted you personally.

You did it to me pretty much every post and I just ignored those quotes, deleted them and dealt with the issues. If you would have stopped the insulting, flaming and constant unsubstantiated rhetoric this would have been a good debate.

No. I never insulted you personally.
Then apparently someone else is regularly stealing your keyboard and typing insults like: "You . . . try to please others with your total lack of intellect that makes you appear as a 'bufoon' type character" or maybe your comment on my "overall idiocy"?
Am I to assume that saying I was a "crackpot Conservative" with "Intellectually Challenged views" is really a sign of affection in Britain?
"Oh well, if you are that ignorant" must be one to, hm?

Just pointing ou that you did, in fact, insult me personally. Not that I am innocent, I think that I was more than excessive in returning fire (just like any crazy American). I may have even shot off first, but you were far from polite.
Ah well, its over now.

No. I never insulted you personally.

You did it to me pretty much every post and I just ignored those quotes, deleted them and dealt with the issues. If you would have stopped the insulting, flaming and constant unsubstantiated rhetoric this would have been a good debate.

You are wrong, you are annoying, and your constant name-changing is doublly annoying as it means I can't block out your posts automatically. Understand you are banned for a reason.
You are unwanted - if you weren't, the mods would let you stay - as it is you're just pissing them off by dodging the block - it can't be long before they ask Jolt for an IP ban.
Then maybe we can all get some peace.