[net.politics] Nicaragua, Reagan, the Soviets, and the Devil

berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (05/07/85)

  Tim Sevener writes:
>There are rumors that part of Nicaragua's deal with the Soviets is for
>both military aid and a Soviet naval port on the Pacific.  This should
>be opposed by Peace Groups as clearly as the U.S. funding for the Contras
>has been opposed by Peace Groups.  I do not think a military buildup on
>Nicaragua's part is justified.  Rather than making Nicaragua more secure
>it creates the perfect pretext for U.S. military intervention.
-----------
   I disagree. Nicaragua is already under attack, not only politically
and economically by the most powerful nation on earth, but also militarily
by a force armed and trained by the US. The daily death toll is running
an average of 5 Nicaraguans. (Relative to th US population, that would
be 400 daily war dead).  If at this point the Nicaraguans went to the
Devil himself to make deals for arms to defend themselves, I don't think
it would be the right of US Peace Groups to critiicize that.
Let us first remove the boot of our government on the neck of Nicaragua
before criticizing their efforts to fight back.
    Furthermore, I think, sad as it may be, that a genuine deterent to
Reagan sending US troops is the knowledge that the Nicaraguans would
inflict heavy damage on any ground force. That, in turn, could create
an unacceptable political situation here in the US.
    Reagan needs no genuine pretexts; he shows tremendous ability
to invent them at will.
    Violence stinks. But I think it is important to distinguish between
the violence of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressor.
                        
                 Andy Berman

orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/07/85)

> Andy Berman writes: (to my call for Peace groups to oppose Nicaraguan arms)
>    I disagree. Nicaragua is already under attack, not only politically
> and economically by the most powerful nation on earth, but also militarily
> by a force armed and trained by the US. The daily death toll is running
> an average of 5 Nicaraguans. (Relative to th US population, that would
> be 400 daily war dead).  If at this point the Nicaraguans went to the
> Devil himself to make deals for arms to defend themselves, I don't think
> it would be the right of US Peace Groups to critiicize that.
> Let us first remove the boot of our government on the neck of Nicaragua
> before criticizing their efforts to fight back.
>     Reagan needs no genuine pretexts; he shows tremendous ability
> to invent them at will.
>                  Andy Berman

If you make a deal with the Devil, you will inevitably pay the price.
There is no way that the Nicaraguans could withstand a full-scale
conventional attack with ordinary conventional weapons.  If they resist
an American resistance then the strength of that resistance must rest
upon the support of the population- *not* primarily the strength of
the weapons employed. The most likely pretext for an American invasion
is to continue creating concerns about Nicaraguan receipt of Soviet arms.
If such reports are true then how will such accusations be denied?
The next step would most likely be a manufactured border incident:
having raised the alarm about Nicaragua arming in such a way as to threaten
its neighbors, then the "threat" to its neighbors will be revealed to be
true by some such border incident.  Then Honduras' government will 
"call upon American help" (carefully orchestrated of course) to repell
this "aggression".  This is what I see as the likely scenario and pretext
for an American invasion or large-scale intervention in Nicaragua if such
is to occur.
For Nicaragua to indeed arm massively with Soviet help plays directly into
this scenario.
I think the defeat of aid to the Contras shows that restraint *can* be
successful in persuading the American people and Congress if not Reagan
and his henchmen that military intervention in Central America is a very
bad thing.  Moves towards Peace and not increasing military arms is
supportive to this cause in American public and Congressional opinion.
On the other hand, you should note that when Ortega went to Moscow right
after the Contra vote, that some Congressmen were outraged and threatened
to change their votes.  Now the House is considering bringing the matter
to another vote.  If it turns out that Moscow is indeed sending military
aid as part of the package negotiated by Ortega then Congress is extremely
likely to continue funding the Contras-- and thus fomenting the 5 deaths
per day you denounce.  And thus we will wind up a little further along
on the road to War.
I don't want to see such a War, do you?
          tim sevener  whuxl!orb
 
"All we are saying, is give Peace a chance"

rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (05/08/85)

<followup to Tim Sevener>

> If such reports [receipt of Soviet arms] are true, then how can
> such accusations be denied?

I wish such a situation existed, ie, that governments and individuals
based their decisions and actions on the actual [sic.] facts.  But
ideology, not facts, seems to drive international politics.  If Reagan
decides he doesn't want to intervene, he can ignore Soviet military 
aid (like he's ignored many situations in the Middle East, the woeful
state of US military capabilities, etc.) and as in so many other cases
do nothing, despite his rhetoric.