janw@inmet.UUCP (10/15/85)
[myers@uwmacc] > > > > Are you *really* saying I am a govt propagandist, or does it just > > sound that way ? > Yep, that's what I was saying: you've learned to read me well in only a > short time - this could be a great relationship! Convinced, by this statement and some others by Mr. Myers, that he is a deliberate and malicious liar, I have nothing more to say to him. Anyone else who would like to raise the same issues is welcome. Jan Wasilewsky
Anonymous@inmet.UUCP (10/15/85)
This message is empty.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/17/85)
> > [myers@uwmacc] > > > > > > Are you *really* saying I am a govt propagandist, or does it just > > > sound that way ? > > > Yep, that's what I was saying: you've learned to read me well in only a > > short time - this could be a great relationship! > > Convinced, by this statement and some others by Mr. Myers, that he > is a deliberate and malicious liar, I have nothing more to say to > him. Anyone else who would like to raise the same issues is welcome. > > Jan Wasilewsky Gee, Jan, it's simply my OPINION that you're a govt propagandist. I'm still waiting for you to specify the kinds of sources from which you get your information, but it looks like you prefer to take your marbles and run home to mommy. Cheers, jeff m
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/18/85)
[Bill Tannenbaum : tan@ihlpg] > Just for the record, Nicaragua abstained on the U. N. resolution > condemning the USSR for the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, > that was five years ago, when Carter was still in office, and > the Sandinistas were still receiving U. S. aid. Bill : you are absolutely right; I knew, and should have remembered. But my interest in Nicaragua intensified much later. By now, I believe their agreement with the USSR in UN votes is about, or exactly, 100% . By comparison, El Salvador (called by some a puppet regime) votes with US about 20% of the time (the last I looked : it was down from 30% before). (Bother: why do all my sentences begin with B ?) Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/18/85)
I wonder if everyone has noticed the little event that happened in Nicaragua this Tuesday (10.15): the government suspended, by edict, and indefinitely, most of the remaining civil liberties. It does not change (not even reinforce) my estimate of this regime (because it is based on different factors); but for those who don't share my model, it could make some difference. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/18/85)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 00:40:05 edt From: ihnp4!inmet!janw@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Jan Wasilewsky) > Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 10:33:22 PDT > From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill) > > [ So, what are...[Nicaragua's large]...forces for, anyway? > ...JoSH ] > > An excellent question, one which has much troubled me. You, JoSH, > seem to feel that since there is no plausible explanation for their > numbers, they must be for attacking their neighbors. Logically, this is > an unsound implication. Add to it their early rhetoric about revolution without borders, and you get both tools and motive: they were out to carve out a Central American empire for themselves and their cause. Not opportunity, though: > You also feel that they would be useless in > defending against a determined attack by the United States; why then are > you so enthusiastic about their utility in attacking nations which the > US would surely leap to defend? When the revolution won, it was quite unclear what USA would do in such a crisis. Salvadoran situation seemed, to many, hopeless. Apparently, Ortega & his comrades waited for a moment that never came. > Sadly, I have to come to the conclusion that the militaristic nature > of the Nicaraguan state is the result of a paranoid mentality on the > part of the leadership. But as has been pointed out to me before, just > because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. And > the US is surely out to get Nicaragua. You mean out to get the regime in Managua. Yes, but it was not at first: it *helped* the bastards. And it was then that they created that bloated army. Paranoia, all right, but it can be a powerful tool of conquest - as many revolutionary wars in history will attest. > The simple fact is that the most powerful nation in the world is fuming > with hostility at a tiny, bankrupt but proud (read, uncooperative) neighbor. > Not being saints, the leadership has responded to this threat the way all > nations have responded to similar situations: with desperate militarism > and nationalism. Again: the "response" came before the threat. And many people feel that here is a "tiny, proud" tentacle of the Soviet squid. *That* beast is large; no shame in combatting it where you can. In any case, Contras are as Nicaraguan as are the Sandinistas; in helping them, we are *helping* a tiny neighbor. Was any outside help to Sandinistas against Somoza a cowardly attack on a small nation? If not, then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Jan Wasilewsky
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (10/19/85)
In article <7800543@inmet.UUCP> Anonymous@inmet.UUCP writes: > > One of the more intelligent articles I've seen in this newsgroup, I must say.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/21/85)
> > > The simple fact is that the most powerful nation in the world is fuming > > with hostility at a tiny, bankrupt but proud (read, uncooperative) neighbor. > > Not being saints, the leadership has responded to this threat the way all > > nations have responded to similar situations: with desperate militarism > > and nationalism. > > [janw] > Again: the "response" came before the threat. And many people > feel that here is a "tiny, proud" tentacle of the Soviet squid. > *That* beast is large; no shame in combatting it where you can. > Bullshit. You know nothing about the timing of events in the early years which forced Nicaragua to go to the Warsaw Pact for arms. The Sandinistas tried extremely hard to continue on with US and Western European weapons, but were only able to forge a small deal with France due to US pressure. Again, why don't you check out the May/June issue of NACLA Reports? I admit, it is difficult to read with your eyes tightly closed. > In any case, Contras are as Nicaraguan as are the Sandinistas; in > helping them, we are *helping* a tiny neighbor. Was any outside > help to Sandinistas against Somoza a cowardly attack on a small > nation? If not, then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the > gander. > > Jan Wasilewsky You make me sick, Jan. The Guardia Nacional are as Nicarguan as the Sandinistas in the same sense that the Waffen SS were as German as the underground. They murdered about 2% of the population in the last few years of Somoza's reign. While all the contras are not Guardia, most of the top level military leadership is, along with the usual smattering of mercenaries and CIA operatives. Regardless of the exact composition of the contras, they have killed 9000 Nicaraguans in the last five years, mostly civilian (campesinos, health workers, and educators in the north, mainly). If, say, the USSR were supporting a similar group of cut-throats based in Canada, and they were killing US citizens in the same proportion, 900,000 of our brothers and sisters would be dead. Think about that. jeff m