orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/20/85)
> > From Jim Matthews: > > A vote on releasing funds for military aid to the "contras" will be coming > > up shortly in Congress. The contras are the ex-Somocista national guardsmen > > who attack Nicaragua from bases in Honduras. > > Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The issues in Nicaragua would be more > clear-cut if this was the case, but in fact only a small minority of the > contras have ties to the old national guard. Men like Eden Pastora fought > the Samoza regime for decades, only to see his revolution co-opted by > Marxists. And that's why they are fighting in the jungles. Correction: in fact the coalition asking for funds admitted that 18 of the 50 leading members of the contras were members of Somoza's National Guard. Further, Eden Pastora has been cut out of the contra coalition. > > > The contras, despite massive funding by CIA covert aid and private right-wing > > groups in the US,.... > > Again, this is a simplification. The aid to the contras (some $40 > million last year, the Administration is now asking for $14 mill.) has > been rather insignificant. Immeadiately after the Sandinista victory in > 1979, Jimmy Carter sent the new regime $75 million in economic aid. In fact, > Carter gave the Sandinistas more money in one day than we had given to > Samoza in years, or that we have given the contras since. Correction: $75 million in economic aid for a whole country (even if it is a small one) is rather different than $40 million for a group of armed rebels. If Cuba sent $40 million to violent revolutionaries in the U.S. we would be very upset. > But I didn't > hear you complaining of "massive" U.S. funding of a regime that has also > been implicated in rather brutal violations of human rights. Correction: America's Watch and other Human Rights organizations have reported that the contras have been responsible for hundreds of violations of human rights since 1981, involving murder and other violations. The Sandinistas have been held responsible for 3 disappearances. The Sandinistas could also be held responsible for catcalls and attempts to drown out opposition speakers in the last election. Is this any different than the Reagan campaigns confiscation of protest signs from demonstrators at Reagan rallies while passing out Reagan-Bush signs? While such tactics are certainly not to be condoned on any side, I would hardly call them "brutal violations of human rights". Would you? If you wish to fund terrorist activities led with heavy influence by National Guardsmen for a regime that was one of the most abusive of human rights in Latin America, then come right out and say so. But do not claim that such a group is in favor of democracy any more than Somoza was. tim sevener whuxl!orb
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/26/85)
In article <528@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >The Sandinistas have been held responsible for 3 disappearances. >The Sandinistas could also be held responsible for catcalls and attempts >to drown out opposition speakers in the last election. Is this any >different than the Reagan campaigns confiscation of protest signs from >demonstrators at Reagan rallies while passing out Reagan-Bush signs? Of course it's different !!. Clearly, you have no idea what is it like to live under a military dictatorship, where the government controls all the media. You think the opposition candidates were able to hold debates with the sandinistas on TV or criticize the government in TV/Radio/newspaper ads?. No such thing. The information the people get from watching TV or reading the newspapers is completely distorted since all TV stations are owned by the government and the one and only opposition newspaper in Nicaragua, "La Prensa", is subject to censorship everyday; the government won't allow them to print anything criticizing the sandinistas and everyday they censor about 40% of the articles in the newspaper. You take for granted things like Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, yet people die fighting for these freedoms. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/29/85)
> > Of course it's different !!. Clearly, you have no idea what is it like > to live under a military dictatorship, where the government controls all > the media. You think the opposition candidates were able to hold debates > with the sandinistas on TV or criticize the government in TV/Radio/newspaper > ads?. No such thing. > -- > Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department > ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell Actually opposition parties participating in the election were each given a certain amount of television time equal to that provided for the Sandinistas. Of course this does not mean that the Sandinista government could not dominate the media in other ways, any more than whomever is President in our own country can dominate the media without paying for explicit advertising time. Allowing access to the media for all groups is a very crucial issue for democracies in the electronic age, our own democracy included. I am afraid you are wrong to say the opposition did not get the chance to debate or appear on Television. The fact is that regardless of what you or I "think" the opposition could debate on the black box. tim sevener whuxl!orb
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/02/85)
In article <562@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Actually opposition parties participating in the election were each >given a certain amount of television time equal to that provided for >the Sandinistas. Of course this does not mean that the Sandinista government >could not dominate the media in other ways, any more than whomever is >President in our own country can dominate the media without paying for >explicit advertising time. > tim sevener whuxl!orb The big difference is that in Nicaragua, the government OWNS the media. The TV station does whatever the government tells them to do. Do you imagine what would it be like if the US government owned ALL the TV and radio stations?. How can you expect the people to be well informed when all the places they go to get information (TV, radio, newspapers) are all owned by the government (except for "La Prensa", the only remaining opposition newspaper which is heavily censored)?. All dictatorships, left wing and right wing alike, rely on a censored press and media. That's the only way of keeping the truth from reaching its people. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/04/85)
In article <4625@ucla-cs.ARPA> ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) writes: > The big difference is that in Nicaragua, the government OWNS the media. > The TV station does whatever the government tells them to do. Do you imagine > what would it be like if the US government owned ALL the TV and radio stations?. Oh my goodness! We would be like England! How horrible! Government ownership of media is not automatically terrible: it just presents an opportunity for positive feedback that could allow the government to become more dictatorial. I would guess that the government owned and/or controlled the media in Nicaragua before the revolution. > How can you expect the people to be well informed when all the places they > go to get information (TV, radio, newspapers) are all owned by the government > (except for "La Prensa", the only remaining opposition newspaper which is > heavily censored)?. > All dictatorships, left wing and right wing alike, rely on a censored press > and media. That's the only way of keeping the truth from reaching its people. Not a few other forms of government also rely on censored press and media. I agree that censorship and government monopoly of the media should be eliminated wherever possible, including Nicaragua. I just want to make sure that people don't conclude that their presence is a sound reason to work to overthrow the present regime. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh