NationStates Jolt Archive

What happened on September the 11th...

...in Chile in 1973?

I have no idea.

Please, enlighten me.

:Googles It:

A military coup.

I dont know the details

there was a military coup...but thats all i know... :sniper:

a military coup huh?

CIA backed military coup which lead to the 17 year long fascist rule of Augusto Pinochet. 3,000 civilians are believed to have died at the hands of the military during the events of 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973#Military_coup_of_1973

This happens every year, some jerk complains about Pinochet again. Why don't you talk about Kim Jong Il and the murder of 4+ million Koreans?

This happens every year, some jerk complains about Pinochet again. Why don't you talk about Kim Jong Il and the murder of 4+ million Koreans?

Because it didn't happen on 9/11 of any year, I guess...and because people really don't like to talk about North Korea, for whatever reason...

The thinking at the time was anything was better than a communist South America.

We took care of Pinochet later (was it him that was defeated by loud music?), thereby fixing our own idiotic blunder. Too bad 3000 people died in between. Still, 3000 people is likely a small number compared to the deaths that would have occurred in a Stalinist South American continent.

Moral relativism, anyone?

Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Chile and now is doing to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is a terrorist and promotes fear in your people and stupid people believe him and are glued to the TV watching propaganda thinking they will save you. Instead of killing your soldiers (which are mostly poor and brain washed teenagers) and the thousands or civilians, your soldiers should be helping in Florida and other disaters zones in your country and aboard. IN CHile it was all orchestrated by your government like always.

Disgusting.

let me think, killed by a ruthless puppet dictator from USA? or live under Allende that wasn't a dictator and didn't killed anybody, those were all lies

Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Chile and now is doing to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is a terrorist and promotes fear in your people and stupid people believe him and are glued to the TV watching propaganda thinking they will save you. Instead of killing your soldiers (which are mostly poor and brain washed teenagers) and the thousands or civilians, your soldiers should be helping in Florida and other disaters zones in your country and aboard. IN CHile it was all orchestrated by your government like always.

Disgusting.
1.) The Afghan people are pretty excited about their first-ever national election. The Taliban is gone, the warlords are (sort of) complying with the central government, the Afghan National Army, which exists due to US intervention, is doing a pretty good job of maintaining general security, and the peoples' standard of living has gone up since the invasion. Clearly, that makes the US "terrorists."

2.) A guy with an M-16 who isn't trained for disaster relief doesn't have much of a place in Florida. We've got plenty of agencies working for them, none of which considers an MP-5 standard issue.

3.) The events in Chile happened during the Cold War, a time in history in which international poitics was very different than today. Moral relativism is generally frowned upon nowadays, but back then, many times we had a choice between "the bad" and "the worse." Which would you choose?

4.) Your raving criticisms prove that you, too, have been buying into propaganda. Yet another case of the pot referring to the kettle as a Negro.

The thinking at the time was anything was better than a communist South America.

We took care of Pinochet later (was it him that was defeated by loud music?), thereby fixing our own idiotic blunder. Too bad 3000 people died in between.


I think you may be confusing Pinochet with someone else - Noreiga, perhaps?

The end of the Pinochet regime was not caused by the US, but by open democratic elections.

Still, 3000 people is likely a small number compared to the deaths that would have occurred in a Stalinist South American continent.

Very true, but Stalin didn't come to power as a direct result of CIA intervention to destabilise the sovereignty of another state.

Moral relativism, anyone?


Arguing moral relativism is irrelevant if your grasp on the facts is in error (no flame intended).

Your'e banging your head against the wall BWO - some poeple blindly convince themselves that their government has never done anything "bad", even when shown evidence...or if they do, they find some way to rationalise it...

What he says
Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Chile and now is doing to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is a terrorist and promotes fear in your people and stupid people believe him and are glued to the TV watching propaganda thinking they will save you. Instead of killing your soldiers (which are mostly poor and brain washed teenagers) and the thousands or civilians, your soldiers should be helping in Florida and other disaters zones in your country and aboard. IN CHile it was all orchestrated by your government like always.

Disgusting.

What I hear.
Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Chile and now is doing to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is a terrorist BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
As he is sucked into a credibilty black hole. Way to go man. Bush is no more a terrorist than Kerry is. Radical Islamofacist murdered over 3000 people and this is the crap you spew?

Your'e banging your head against the wall BWO - some poeple blindly convince themselves that their government has never done anything "bad", even when shown evidence...or if they do, they find some way to rationalise it...


Well, Show Choir Realm does describe the coup as "our own idiotic blunder", but it is hard to see exactly what (s)he meant by fixing it, as (s)he seems to be confusing Chile with Panama (or so I suppose on the basis of the reference to loud music).

2.) A guy with an M-16 who isn't trained for disaster relief doesn't have much of a place in Florida. We've got plenty of agencies working for them, none of which considers an MP-5 standard issue.


Who do you think it is that always gets sent to help out in disaster areas? The National Guard, among other agencies such as the Red Cross. The role of the National Guard is supposed to be to defend out homeland in case of an invasion, and to help out with disaster relief. However, since half of our National Guardsmen are currently overseas doing jobs that they TRULY aren't trained (well enough) for, there's not as many here at home to help out in Florida and any other place that may need it.

before someone attacks my "they aren't trained" statement, hear me out for a second. A friend of mine recently came back home from deployment in Iraq. He was in an artillery unit in the Army National Guard, and guess what he was deployed as? Military Police duties. How much did they train his unit for this? 8 days. Military police training is supposed to take MUCH longer than that, (don't remember exactly how long, but I believe it was somewhere around 8 WEEKS at least, maybe 10). 8 days != 8 weeks

Jesus, you know, whenever Americans point out that, for example, Germany slaughtered millions of jews, Spain pretty much massacred everyone in the inquisition, Britain, for the most part, enslaved the world, and france nearly did the same, or that the whole of Europe went on several invasions into the middle east, its in the past. But apparently, you're allowed to point out everything America has ever done wrong and call us evil.

Watch your ass, my son, you haven't wiped yet

I did indeed confuse Chile and Panama and Manuel Noriega with Pinochet.

My mistake. I've been watching too many Discovery-Times documentaries, they became blurred. :)

Still, my point stands (on flimsy stilts in the middle of a hurricane). Putting Pinochet in power was justified in order to keep Stalinist communism from spreading. Not much of a justification, I agree, but again, the questions at the time often boiled down to "Would we rather have the bad or the worse?"

What happened on September the 11th...

...in Chile in 1973?

one of the reasons why henry kissinger has to check with his lawyers to before leaving the country to make sure he won't be held as a war criminal or extradicted to somewhere where he will be.

Right the US did plenty of bad stuff during the Cold War...so what? The Soviets did far worse. When comparing the lesser of two evils the US was a saintly nation. But hey whatever a guy who led his nation through a period of economic booms and instituted a policy which made Chile an economic powerhouse for a nation its size was apparently a bad thing. Maybe Chile should have become a Marxist communist country like say..Nicaragua...because the Sandinistas were saintly..or how about in Peru and the Shining Path....give me a break..Communists in South America backed by the Soviets far overshadow Pinochet and his misdeeds to conslidate his power and stablized the nation.

Oh and just since figures were kindly provided on Pinochet..fine..
Shining Path 68-94(after 94 things have been rather sporadic)=35,000 deaths attributed to them

But hey...even though thats 10x worse than Pinochet, who cares? The US didnt back the Shining Path, and it didnt just happen to coincide with September 11th :-T

The US and the psuedo-communists were both shitheads.

Really, that's probebly the best conclusion one can make from the evidence provided from this thread :p

Still, 3000 people is likely a small number compared to the deaths that would have occurred in a Stalinist South American continent.

Except for the fact that Salvador Allende was democratically elected in the first place and not a fascist like Stalin....

Except for the fact that Salvador Allende was democratically elected in the first place and not a fascist like Stalin....

Well..Allende was elected and Stalin wasnt...Hitler was elected and Pinochet wasnt...hey look! It works in both directions.

Well..Allende was elected and Stalin wasnt...Hitler was elected and Pinochet wasnt...hey look! It works in both directions.
Hitler wasn´t elected. He was appointed by the President - who was elected.
That is showing that it is not good to concentrate too much power into one hand, though. That is undermining a system of cheques and balances. And that wasn´t working due to the emergency powers of the president which were used since 1930.

Right the US did plenty of bad stuff during the Cold War...so what? The Soviets did far worse.


See anybody on this thread saying that the Soviets were a good thing?

The main justification for the CIA's involvement in the coup in Chile seems to be the theory of the domino effect, the supporting evidence for which is hardly conclusive.

My point is that the US should learn from its mistakes and that without some kind of informed knowledge of the relevant factors (US intervention around the world supporting unsavoury characters of many different hues whenever it appears to be temporarily expedient) it is almost impossible to come to an understanding of the forces that rose to prominence in rthe attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Right the US did plenty of bad stuff during the Cold War...so what?
What about Venezuela the first attempted coup of the 21st century, The CIA are still doing it, Chavez is democraticly elected, but they tried to kick him out because they didnt want him.

Maybe Chile should have become a Marxist communist country like say..Nicaragua...because the Sandinistas were saintly......give me a break..Communists in South America backed by the Soviets far overshadow Pinochet and his misdeeds to conslidate his power and stablized the nation.
Right, so the US backed, CIA trained and US equipped (thanks to Iran) contra terrorists who were torturing, raping and killing hundreds, destabilising the country and attacking the infrastructure had nothing to do with the state of the Country's economy. I suppose the US economic embargo also had nothing to do with it either. Just those nasty democratically elected
socialists.


Because it didn't happen on 9/11 of any year, I guess...and because people really don't like to talk about North Korea, for whatever reason...
BTW N.Korea was formed on 9/9 1948. So those deaths can be traced back to starting from them, much like Pinochet's 9/11 1973.
September seems to be a 'good' time for coups and destruction.

This is a littlel ate BUT...

On Sept 11, 1973. General Pinochet launched a military coup in south america, turning Chile into a Semi-Facist Military dictatorship for more than 20 years. Over 3,000 people died or "Dissappeared". Tens of thousands left or were exiled. During the coup, he launched TWO PLANES(sound familiar?) armed with missiles(not familiar) to destroy the Presidential Palace. They did, and nearly 80% of the building went up in flames(whoosh). Everyone in the Palace(his cabinet and personal guard. They were fighting the military, but needless to say they were doomed) surrendered and let the building EXCEPT for the President. When someone went upstairs to check the president, they saw him with an AK-47 against his head. He then blew his brains out, which baisically meant that the Evil Reign of Pinochet began.


Heres a BREIF description of Noriega(who has been mentioned on this thread).

He came to power after the "Mysterious" plane crash of the then Military Dictator, Omar Torrijos(pronounced TorriHos) in the late '80's. He then built up the Panamanian Military to a large proportion. He tried to make an alliance with Castro, but it didnt work out very well(kinda Reminds you of Hugo Chavez, doesnt it?). In 1989, he started to be openly aggressive against The United States. He then declared war against the United states. 20,000 semi-well to poorly trained Defence Forces against 600,000 members of the worlds most powerful, advanced, and the overall best army in the world. Guess who won? Most of the fighting happend on the first Night, which resulted in somewherea round 350 american casualties and a few thousand Panamanian. Sections of Panama City(the capital) were bombed, and are now in ruins(and they have baisically become the slums). Noreiga held out in the Vaticans Embassy for three days, and then he turned himself in. Soem Panamanian soldiers kept on fighting for three more weeks, but then they surrendered.

BTW- Neither of the Dictators(well,at least not Noreiga) came to power by the United States. (i Know Noreiga didnt because ive seen ALOT of documentaries on him, PLUS i live in Panama.) Also, one of my former Techers lived in Chile and knows all about the 9/11 1973.

See anybody on this thread saying that the Soviets were a good thing?

The main justification for the CIA's involvement in the coup in Chile seems to be the theory of the domino effect, the supporting evidence for which is hardly conclusive.

My point is that the US should learn from its mistakes and that without some kind of informed knowledge of the relevant factors (US intervention around the world supporting unsavoury characters of many different hues whenever it appears to be temporarily expedient) it is almost impossible to come to an understanding of the forces that rose to prominence in rthe attacks on the World Trade Centre.

No but I see the US getting unfairly trounced on a regularly fuckin basis. "Oh you did this in the cold war, and oh you did this in the cold war." Hey guess what, it wasnt a mistake because oh my god look. No more Soviet Union. Guess we won after all and Chile is the only South American country which has managed to sustain its economic growth from the mid 20th century till today. As for the US supporting unsavor characters today, yeah that Hamid Kharzim is one real ironfisted brute..him and his college educated backround...right...apples and oranges, two completely different eras.

What about Venezuela the first attempted coup of the 21st century, The CIA are still doing it, Chavez is democraticly elected, but they tried to kick him out because they didnt want him.

However in Venezula Chavez is about as well liked there as Bush is here. The CIA just cant magically overthrow a government. There actually has to be a willingness with the people there to overthrow the government. An appearently at the time there was one.

contra terrorists who were torturing, raping and killing hundreds, destabilising the country and attacking the infrastructure .

Right and the Sandanistas were saints? All along Nicaraguas Atlantic coast they killed or imprisoned anyone who they thought to be collaberating with the contras. Amensty International also didnt exactly have much to say about Sandanista political prisons. Especially the one at Las Tejas.

Just those nasty democratically elected
socialists.

Umm..no,they werent democratically elected. They overthrew Somoza in a breif and bloody civil war....well technically in South America that seems to be how one gets elected..but thats a different story.

Still, my point stands (on flimsy stilts in the middle of a hurricane). Putting Pinochet in power was justified in order to keep Stalinist communism from spreading. Not much of a justification, I agree, but again, the questions at the time often boiled down to "Would we rather have the bad or the worse?"
How many people would have had to have been murdered by Pinochet before you'd have considered him the "worse" option?

Amensty International also didnt exactly have much to say about Sandanista political prisons. Especially the one at Las Tejas."During the war Amnesty International and other groups reported that political prisoners in Sandinista prisons, such as in Las Tejas, were beaten, deprived of sleep and tortured with electric shocks. They were denied food and water and kept in dark cubicles that had a surface of less than one square meter, known as chiquitas ("little ones"). These cubicles were too small to sit up in and had no sanitation and almost no ventilation. "

What is your motivation for lying about Amnesty International?

Umm..no,they werent democratically elected. "Following promulgation of a new constitution, Nicaragua held national elections in 1984, in which Daniel Ortega and Sergio Ramirez were elected president and vice-president, and the FSLN won a large majority of seats in the new national assembly. Although several opposition parties boycotted the election and it was denounced by Reagan as "a sham", it was endorsed as free and fair by numerous international observers. "

(Source for both quotes http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Sandinista)

A simple question for you. Do you believe that a country's people have the right to elect a Marxist goverment if they wish?

4/\/\3|21k4 15 3\/11

Amensty International also didnt exactly have much to say about Sandanista political prisons.
Especially the one at Las Tejas.What is your motivation for lying about Amnesty International?

I think NY&J meant "not much good to say about..."

I think NY&J meant "not much good to say about..."

Yes thank you. That is exactly what I meant.


And Holy Word, the Sandanistas were elected AFTER the civil war. Not before.

Guess what, when the Sandinista communist were in power who do you think supporterd them in congress, Senator Kerrey, check his record. No Kerrey is not a communist but he is a leftist.

I saw a news report on Nicaragua where school children were being thought that Presidents Carter, and reagan were bad and Fidel Castro was good, while the media may influence what we see and hear, I dont think they put their children in front of a camera and called it Nicaragua. Please some one defend the oposing view.

The people have a right to elect a communist socialist marxist government if they like the problem is after they get to power no one has the right to vote them out of office they ban all political partys but their own, they imprison or exile those that do not agree with them etc, etc,etc.

The people on Nation States defending those governments would not be free to voice their economic, political and social views if they lived in the Soviet Union, the former communist nations of Europe, Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua,
Vietnam, North Korea and Chavez Venezuela revolucion bolivariana, he does not talk of his government he talks of his revolution, I hope Chavez gives up
power when his term expires to another leader of his revolution or to the oposition should they win, only time will tell.

1. You will have free medical care
2. Free education
3. You and your children will do compulsory voluntary work to pay for it.
4. You will be paid in Pesos the national currency
5. You wiill buy certain goods only in Dollars in dollar stores, which you do not
earn, sent to you by your Cuban american relatives.
6. You will not be allowed to stay in your nations hotels with Pesos or Dollars.
7. You will use a ration card for food and other products.
8. You will march in a pro government march when told to do so.
9. You will not be permited to have a home computer.
1o. When you go to the hospital dont forget to take your blankets with you.
11. When you need certain medicines ask your Cuban American relatives to
send it to you.
12. I can go on and on, but I will start a thread on Cuba in the near future.
Thank You.

The people have a right to elect a communist socialist marxist government if they like the problem is after they get to power no one has the right to vote them out of office they ban all political partys but their own, they imprison or exile those that do not agree with them etc, etc,etc.

The people on Nation States defending those governments would not be free to voice their economic, political and social views if they lived in ... Sandinista Nicaragua...

Explain to me why, if this is the case, the Sandinista government was then removed from office when it lost the election to the coalition led by UNO in the late 80s - the Sandinista regime were no saints, but they did not ban expression of alternative economic/social/political views.

Would any one on this thread like to be a Cuban citizen...

1o. When you go to the hospital dont forget to take your blankets with you.


The relevance of this is what exactly? That the fascist coup in Chile was justified because it spared the people from a socialist (not communist) government and thus despite the death toll of the disappeared and the murders in the Santiago stadium, it safeguarded people from the possibility of having to bring their own blankets with them to hospital?

Explain to me why, if this is the case, the Sandinista government was then removed from office when it lost the election to the coalition led by UNO in the late 80s - the Sandinista regime were no saints, but they did not ban expression of alternative economic/social/political views.

The hell they didnt. The Sandinstas launched a brutal campaign against the english speaking folks on the Atlantic coast who didnt agree with the Sandinstas. The Contra's launched two wars. And one of those wars led to the Sandinstas launching attacks against any people who they believed was against them.

And again Las Tejas comes to mind. It was a political prison, which meant the Sandanistas imprisoned dissenters. As for why they were voted out of power in the late 80s..its because in 88 the Contras signed a peace treaty with the Sandanistas to end the civil war and to bring the Sandanistas into the fold. They eventually lost to a coalition of rightwing-center groups most prominently one of them was the Contras. In a sense, the only reason they lost was because they were forced by treaty to play fair or face a longer war.

And Holy Word, the Sandanistas were elected AFTER the civil war. Not before.
Still one more election then Somoza won then.

The hell they didnt. The Sandinstas launched a brutal campaign against the english speaking folks on the Atlantic coast who didnt agree with the Sandinstas. The Contra's launched two wars. And one of those wars led to the Sandinstas launching attacks against any people who they believed was against them.

And again Las Tejas comes to mind. It was a political prison, which meant the Sandanistas imprisoned dissenters. As for why they were voted out of power in the late 80s..its because in 88 the Contras signed a peace treaty with the Sandanistas to end the civil war and to bring the Sandanistas into the fold. They eventually lost to a coalition of rightwing-center groups most prominently one of them was the Contras. In a sense, the only reason they lost was because they were forced by treaty to play fair or face a longer war.No one's condoning Las Tejas- I personally find Amnesty to be a far more credible source on the Sandanistas then right wing apologists for fascist goverments. I quoted Amnesty's views on Las Tejas. You haven't even acknowledged humans rights abuses by the Contras. What's your source for the rest of your allegations?

Still, my point stands (on flimsy stilts in the middle of a hurricane). Putting Pinochet in power was justified in order to keep Stalinist communism from spreading. Not much of a justification, I agree, but again, the questions at the time often boiled down to "Would we rather have the bad or the worse?"

Yes, many such actions all across the continent were justified with that argument. Which is really very flimsy because, how do you know that Stalinism would spread? It would have to appear first, since Allende wasn't a Stalinist, just your basic socialist who was out to increase taxes for the wealthy, nationalize strategic industries (in hands of foreigners), enforce separation of church and state, and increase social spending.

None of that seems too bad. Of course, there were consequences, like foreign powers refusing to buy copper or sell goods to Chile, which caused a spiral of inflation and scarcity. The army became restless and many religious folk didn't like the actions. And yet, Allende didn't stop discourse, put out manifestations violently or outlawed democracy.

In my view there is no justification in carrying out or supporting a coup, the dictatorship that followed and the repression and disappearences during all those years.

And remember that the only reason Pinochet left power was because of continuing pressure from the whole region, and only after receiving assurances that he or his followers wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes committed during the dictatorship.

Still one more election then Somoza won then.

No one's condoning Las Tejas- I personally find Amnesty to be a far more credible source on the Sandanistas then right wing apologists for fascist goverments. I quoted Amnesty's views on Las Tejas. You haven't even acknowledged humans rights abuses by the Contras. What's your source for the rest of your allegations?

I'm not calling the Contra's peaceniks. Both sides were brutal savages. As for Somoza, here you are screaming about how the Sandanistas were elected, well it's easy to be elected when your engaged in a civil war with your rivals and they cant exactly vote. Notice how they got voted out of power after the fighting stopped?

As for my source for my allegations, check out a documentary called Nicaragua Was Our Home,made by native Miskito Indians. They talk about what the Sandanistas did to them for siding against the Sandanistas non-violently. The attempted force relocation of their people which actually caused them to openly revolt against the Sandanistas so on and so forth.

I'm not calling the Contra's peaceniks. Both sides were brutal savages. As for Somoza, here you are screaming about how the Sandanistas were elected, well it's easy to be elected when your engaged in a civil war with your rivals and they cant exactly vote. Notice how they got voted out of power after the fighting stopped?
Notice how international observers called the elections free and fair?

And how can you say that you're not supporting the American foreign policy of covert support for the Contras when you've said this:

No but I see the US getting unfairly trounced on a regularly fuckin basis. "Oh you did this in the cold war, and oh you did this in the cold war." Hey guess what, it wasnt a mistake because oh my god look.

How are the US being "unfairly trounced" if the Contras were brutal savages?
As for my source for my allegations, check out a documentary called Nicaragua Was Our Home,made by native Miskito Indians. They talk about what the Sandanistas did to them for siding against the Sandanistas non-violently. The attempted force relocation of their people which actually caused them to openly revolt against the Sandanistas so on and so forth.I'm not denying that the Sandanistas committed human rights violations against indigenous people. Amnesty wrote extensively on it. I'm asking for proof that (emphasis mine)And one of those wars led to the Sandinstas launching attacks against any people who they believed was against them. and that In a sense, the only reason they lost was because they were forced by treaty to play fair or face a longer war. [/b]Provide some proof that the previous election was not free and fair.

Finally some more quotes from http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Sandinista Unlike you they're impartial. For example they point out that

"The Contra war unfolded differently in the northern and southern zones of Nicaragua. Contras based in Costa Rica operated in Nicaragua's Atlantic Coast, which is sparsely populated by indigenous groups including the Miskito, Sumu , Rama, Garifuno, and Mestizo. Unlike western Nicaragua, which is Spanish-speaking, the Atlantic Coast is predominantly English-speaking and was largely ignored by the Somoza regime. The costeños did not participate in the uprising against Somoza and viewed Sandinismo with suspicion from the outset. Lacking support from the population, Sandinista troops committed their worst human rights abuses on the Atlantic Coast, including the forcible relocation of 8,500 Miskito from their land as well as killing or imprisoning indigenous people suspected of collaborating with contras. On two separate occasions in 1981 and 1982, Sandinista troops committed massacres in which dozens of indigenous people were killed and buried in common graves."

And that should be condemed by any right thinking person. But they also point out

"Unlike the Cuban revolution, however, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism throughout its time in power. A broad range of new political parties emerged to take advantage of freedoms that had not existed under Somoza. "

Okay do you know how the Sandanistas came into direct conflict with the Miskito Indians? The Sandanistas tried to at first teach the Miskito's Indians Spanish. However they never considered themselves Nicaraguans and actually used to consider themselves part of the British Empire as a Protectorate. Of course that changed in the 1800s and they were taken over. Now once the Miskito told the Sandanista's they could go screw themselves they came back to relocate them closer to the capital and thus within a greater reach of the Sandanistas. This is where the atrocities committed against people who did nothing come into play.

As for free and fair elections..maybe you missed the whole part about it being easy to win when your fighting an entire different segment of the population..I mean really now Lincoln got re-elected during the Civil War but then again no one in the South vote for him.

Quite frankly as for my remark on the US getting constantly attacked, this is just one of the many examples. Now frankly we seem to concentrate on those folks who've the US supported and not those governments that got supported by Russia, or by China. I know the Contra's were bad people but this had been mentioned in past discussions plenty of damn times. It gets tiring to see it over and over again and to have to defend my countries honor. Both sides were wrong, but when playing for supremecy of the world and for ones ideals there are very few rules during that period.

The rules seem to get written after a victor is declared and only so the rest of the world can bitch at that victor.

Edit:
Here is your proof:
Until the 1979 Sandinista revolution, the Nicaragua government relatively neglected the Miskito people. As the Sandinista attempted to implement their socialist economic policies on the Atlantic coast, conflict was inevitable. Miskito leaders were alienated and fled to Honduras to lead a resistance movement aligned with the US-backed Contras. The Sandinistas responded by forcibly relocating over 40,000 Miskito into resettlement camps in the interior. Another 50,000 joined the resistance movement or fled to refugee camps in Honduras. The violence that ensued resulted in the destruction most Miskito villages along the Coco River. In 1985, a peace accord allowed most Miskito to return to rebuild their villages. However, in March of 1986, the truce broke down and once again thousands of Miskitos fled into Honduras. Only when the fighting was finally over in 1989 did the most of the Miskitos to the Coco River.
http://www.miskitomissions.com/The%20Miskito%20People%20history.htm

Okay do you know how the Sandanistas came into direct conflict with the Miskito Indians? The Sandanistas tried to at first teach the Miskito's Indians Spanish. However they never considered themselves Nicaraguans and actually used to consider themselves part of the British Empire as a Protectorate. Of course that changed in the 1800s and they were taken over. Now once the Miskito told the Sandanista's they could go screw themselves they came back to relocate them closer to the capital and thus within a greater reach of the Sandanistas. This is where the atrocities committed against people who did nothing come into play.And I've already condemned that.

As for free and fair elections..maybe you missed the whole part about it being easy to win when your fighting an entire different segment of the population..I mean really now Lincoln got re-elected during the Civil War but then again no one in the South vote for him.
Do you accept that neutral international observers found the elections to be entirely legitimate?

Quite frankly as for my remark on the US getting constantly attacked, this is just one of the many examples. Now frankly we seem to concentrate on those folks who've the US supported and not those governments that got supported by Russia, or by China. I know the Contra's were bad people but this had been mentioned in past discussions plenty of damn times. It gets tiring to see it over and over again and to have to defend my countries honor. Both sides were wrong, but when playing for supremecy of the world and for ones ideals there are very few rules during that period.

The rules seem to get written after a victor is declared and only so the rest of the world can bitch at that victor.
Most right thinking people still condemn the Chinese for human rights violations. It's merely Western politicans who consider a free market economy to be a baromoter of political validity, regardless of the suppression of dissidents. Out of interest, why do you feel the need to "defend my countries honour" if you believe they acted wrongly? Are you arguing that the American policy of that time was no better or worse then that of Russia and should be seen accordingly? How can supporting torture be said to be playing for one's ideals? Unless your ideals include torture of course. It's hardly anti American to condemn the foreign policy of specific American politicians. There were plenty of American citizens against those actions. It's against those who carried them out under the guise of "geo-political reality" and those like you who still are prepared to condone them.

Edit:
Here is your proof:
Until the 1979 Sandinista revolution, the Nicaragua government relatively neglected the Miskito people. As the Sandinista attempted to implement their socialist economic policies on the Atlantic coast, conflict was inevitable. Miskito leaders were alienated and fled to Honduras to lead a resistance movement aligned with the US-backed Contras. The Sandinistas responded by forcibly relocating over 40,000 Miskito into resettlement camps in the interior. Another 50,000 joined the resistance movement or fled to refugee camps in Honduras. The violence that ensued resulted in the destruction most Miskito villages along the Coco River. In 1985, a peace accord allowed most Miskito to return to rebuild their villages. However, in March of 1986, the truce broke down and once again thousands of Miskitos fled into Honduras. Only when the fighting was finally over in 1989 did the most of the Miskitos to the Coco River.
http://www.miskitomissions.com/The%20Miskito%20People%20history.htmI've already said the Sandinistas committed human rights violations against indigenous peoples. Do you accept those Miskito who aligned with the Contras are also highly likely to be implicated in human rights violations?

What I'm asking for proof of is the following:

1. That the Sandinistas did not tolerate political pluralism including opposition parties.

2. That the Sandinistas lost the election because they were "forced to play fair". Including the insinuation that the previous election wasn't fair.

And I've already condemned that.

Do you accept that neutral international observers found the elections to be entirely legitimate?

Most right thinking people still condemn the Chinese for human rights violations. It's merely Western politicans who consider a free market economy to be a baromoter of political validity, regardless of the suppression of dissidents. Out of interest, why do you feel the need to "defend my countries honour" if you believe they acted wrongly? Are you arguing that the American policy of that time was no better or worse then that of Russia and should be seen accordingly? How can supporting torture be said to be playing for one's ideals? Unless your ideals include torture of course. It's hardly anti American to condemn the foreign policy of specific American politicians. There were plenty of American citizens against those actions. It's against those who carried them out under the guise of "geo-political reality" and those like you who still are prepared to condone them.
I've already said the Sandinistas committed human rights violations against indigenous peoples. Do you accept those Miskito who aligned with the Contras are also highly likely to be implicated in human rights violations?

What I'm asking for proof of is the following:

1. That the Sandinistas did not tolerate political pluralism including opposition parties.

2. That the Sandinistas lost the election because they were "forced to play fair". Including the insinuation that the previous election wasn't fair.

1.But Miskito Indians werent implicated in anything...infact they were fighting against forced redeployment of their people...if anything that should be a prime example of the Sandaninstas non-toleration of people who didnt abide by their own ideas.

2. They won the 84 election, but lost the subsequent 90 election to the National Opposition Union. This is not long after an agreement in 89 had the Contra's re-integrated in society. Now before in 84 the Contras were active since shortly after Somoza fell. Many of the Contras being former members of the National Guard.

But you keep on putting up straw man arguements saying the International Community deemed it free and fair..right..you ignored my anaology as well. Okay the elections were free and fair..and yet you have a good portion of the people out against you PHYSICALLY...what are they going to do? Go vote with their M16s in hand? So of course it was free and fair..who's going to complain when your opposite bases itself in Hondorous and Costa Rica and you've driven out about 100k or so others who dont complain because they've fled the country.

And your trying to play the moralist arguement, which is nice and all, but it doesnt hold up the test of time. I'd defend my countries honor because quite frankly this topic was about Chile, not Nicaragua. Pinochet is given credit for turning Chile into an economically mature nation..unlike their neighbor Argentina who cant seem to keep out a revolving door of Presidents..but whatever...and now Nicaragua..who at the time before Samoza the Sandanistas got aid by Cuba to overthrow another government. I guess Cuba supporting the Sandanistas was okay then?

As for my other beliefs..what the US did was literally no better or worse than what the Russians did. They supported the NVA and VC, so we supported the Afganis ten years later. They overthrew one government, so we overthrew the country next to it to ensure that their puppet regime had to deal with one of our own puppet regimes. This whole concept of "human rights" has only come to pass within the past 20 or so years. You cant impose your beliefs to the situations of the past, otherwise you come to a startling truism..humanity doesnt give a ratsass about human rights when it comes to a struggle between nations. The Geneva convention is a farce and has been proven in the past 30-40 years nearly unenforcable unless it happens to the US committing the crime then everyone screams to the top of their lungs....and no I dont think its okay that the other side gets away with it and we have to maintain a "moral front". Sorry the moment the otherside abuses prisoners then it should open a door for similiar actions committed against their own people. If they dont want that door open then frankly dont abuse prisoners.

Case in point WWII. Sure we put the Japanese-Americans in camps..but we didnt make them work in dangerous caves, or we didnt subdue them to hard labor. But the Japanese did to US POWs, and we all know what the Germans did. Then you've got Korea, and Vietnam..the Hanoi Hilton, claims of POWs still being held 10-15 years after the war...stuff like that frankly proves that the Geneva convention on war is outdated...as are people like yours beliefs in morality when it comes to world politics.