wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/26/84)
Well, Mr. Sevener, you HAVE eaten your own words. You have hoisted yourself on your own petard. The articles in the Times and on NPR specifically refered to the Sandanistas traveling to EASTERN Europe. This is NOT Europe in the general sense. Yes, the Sandinistas stopped in Prauge. That is in Eastern Europe. They then proceded on to Moscow, to pay homage no doubt. Both the Times and NPR pointed this out. Further, there were newsreels of the event on NBC and CBS. The Sandinistas did not go shopping in any Western European country. Oh, perhaps they did stop for refueling or somesuch, got off the plane and purchased a gee-gaw or nick-nack at the airport, but I doubt if they tried to buy arms or anything like that while they were on the ground. In all of the reportage on the trip, it was announced that the specific reason for the trip was to purchase MIGs. Now, unless they were lying, we should assume that this was the pupose of their trip. Whether or not they got the MIGs (maybe backordered), we still don't know. As for the MIGs that were loaded on the freighter, they were off-loaded in Lybia, according to several reports over the last week. You do yourself and others on the net a great disservice by continually bending the news reports to suit your views. If you would pay more attention to the followups on the news, you would see and understand that there is more to the initial news item than just the headline. As for the Sandanistas running around like chickens with their heads cut off, getting ready for an invasion, what is the real reason? Are they using this as an excuse to take the peoples thoughts off the growing internal problems? Is it an excuse to take a swipe at one of their neighbors? They can't point at an invasion force in Honduras any more as there are only one-fifth as many of our troops in there right now. I would like to ask a question, Sevener. Why is it that the Sandanistas do not say to the world and the US in particular, "Hey, let's sit down and talk about this. No pre-conditions, let's just talk about our differences." The Contra plan is so full of pre-conditions that it would take a King Solomon to unravel the strings. If the Sandanistas truely wanted to live and let live, they would be glad to make some type of overture. Alas, though, I feel they have other plans for Central America, and they don't look too healthy for the other nations in the region. T. C. Wheeler
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/29/84)
>From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) >The articles in the Times and on NPR >specifically refered to the Sandanistas traveling to EASTERN Europe. >This is NOT Europe in the general sense. Yes, the Sandinistas stopped >in Prauge. That is in Eastern Europe. They then proceded on to >Moscow, to pay homage no doubt. Both the Times and NPR pointed this >out. Further, there were newsreels of the event on NBC and CBS. >The Sandinistas did not go shopping in any Western European country. > Well, if they travelled to EASTERN Europe, they must be guilty. Imagine, talking to those (multiple expletives deleted). What were there newsreels of, Tom? The Sandanista's "paying homage"? Oh, by the way, France announced this week that it is advancing several million dollars worth of economic aid to the Nicaraguan government. Remember, it's the "Nicaraguan government". Unless you want us to start referring to American diplomats as "the Republicans." >As for the Sandanistas running around like chickens with their heads cut >off, getting ready for an invasion, what is the real reason? Ummmm......let me guess....the armed invasion supported by the CIA? No? no..... umm.....the huge U.S. military exercises in Honduras? No? ...ummm....the U.S. invasion of Grenada last year? No? I give up. > >I would like to ask a question, Sevener. Why is it that the Sandanistas >do not say to the world and the US in particular, "Hey, let's sit down >and talk about this. No pre-conditions, let's just talk about our >differences." The Contra plan is so full of pre-conditions that it >would take a King Solomon to unravel the strings. If the Sandanistas >truely wanted to live and let live, they would be glad to make some >type of overture. Tom, they've signed the Contadora agreement, which the U.S. considered the sine qua non of peace between the countries. Once they signed, the State Department, caught by complete surprise, all of a sudden announced that the agreement the U.S. had been *pressuring* Nicaragua to sign was *inadequate*. They are faced with an undeclared war being waged with instrumental support by the U.S. The U.S. CIA published a instruction manual for terrorists operating against the Nicaraguan government. The U.S. is pressuring its Western allies not to supply economic aid to Nicaragua, then criticizing the country for going to the East for assistance. When Nicaragua files a suit in the World Court, challenging U.S. policy as a violation of international law, the U.S. declares that, so far as it's concerned, the Court doesn't have any jurisdiction. (The Court, by the way, has accepted Nicaragua's suit by a lopsided 15-1 vote. The U.S. is now faced with a decision on whether it will thumb its nose at international law.) Now *who* should be making overtures? -------------------- Mike Kelly
baba@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/30/84)
> I would like to ask a question, Sevener. Why is it that the Sandanistas >do not say to the world and the US in particular, "Hey, let's sit down >and talk about this. No pre-conditions, let's just talk about our >differences." The Contra plan is so full of pre-conditions that it >would take a King Solomon to unravel the strings. If the Sandanistas >truely wanted to live and let live, they would be glad to make some >type of overture. Alas, though, I feel they have other plans for >Central America, and they don't look too healthy for the other nations >in the region. >T. C. Wheeler For someone who is in the process of accusing someone of not reading past newspaper headlines, T.C. seems to have missed a few issues as well. The Sandinistas have repeatedly and publicly requested such a dialogue, (it even made the *headlines* once or twice), and in fact low level discussions are presently (or were recently) taking place in Mexico. The Reagan administration has refused to receive emissaries of the Sandinist government, and indeed the administration refused to accredit Nicaragua's ambassador to the US for several months on some pretty flimsy grounds, until the Sandinists recently withdrew the appointment of the provocative "revolutionary heroine" and replaced her with a more acceptable former law professor. If there is a Contra plan, it is known principally to the CIA ;-). The *Contadora* plan, which was ultimately accepted by the Sandinistas, was then abandoned by the Reagan administration (in a piece of particularly sloppy diplomacy) because there were too *few* strings. I don't trust Ortega and Borge at all. The Sandinist revolution seems to be taking the traditional Leninist lurch to the left, under the guidance of a power hostile to the United States. But you must consider that the Sandinistas overthrew a monstrously corrupt dynastic regime installed and maintained by the United States. The US has *always* been the Enemy to these people. It probably doesn't take much in the way of Soviet or Cuban whisperings to convince them that the US is going to make every effort to destroy their revolution. The clever thing to have done would have been to discredit the Soviet/Cuban scenario. The Reagan administration would appear to be doing just the opposite. It's just sad that the price of bad statesmanship must so often be paid in innocent lives. Baba