andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (04/29/86)
In article <574@dlvax1.datlog.co.uk> dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) writes: >Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to thi >that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read >net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps >howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). Neither can I see how this support for Ortega will change into demands for any *real* democracy (i.e. what's missing today), as long as the country is under constant threat from contras. The US government seems to be very glad to spend money on establishing democracy in Nicaragua. Why not turn around when there is time left? Put those millions of dollars in health care and educational programs *in* Sandinista-land instead, and soon there won't be any need for communism. As things are now, Ortega is simply forced to rely on Soviet assistance. Exactly what did Isaac Newton say about putting pressure on a stone? -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/29/86)
> > >In article <3265@ut-ngp.UUCP> osmigo1@ngp.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > Several points: > > Our European friends should know that opinion polls show that the > majority of Americans are opposed to Reagan's Nicaraguan policies. > Don't be misguided by the right-wing flamers on this net. > Most Americans don't even know which side the U.S. Government is supporting in El Salvador and Nicaragua. (At least they didn't two years ago, when a poll found only 12% of Americans could identify which side we backed in both countries.) > This American believes that the opinion of the Nicaraguan populace, > together with that of their neighbors, is what's really important. > Although I dislike many features of the Sandanista government, the > fact remains that they are the freely elected government. The US has > the right to oppose aggressive acts by that government, if in fact > they are engaging in any, but at the moment they have their hands > full just defending themselves. > "Freely elected" in the very narrowest sense of the word. Consider the mob attacks on opposition parties, abuses of food ration cards for political purposes WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY OFFICIALS OF THE NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT (see the National Geographic article a while back on Nicaraugua), and the on-and-off press censorship. "Freely elected" in the same manner that Mussolini's regieme held free elections. Yes, opposition parties were allowed to have representatives in the Italian Parliament, and elections were held, but the deck was heavily stacked. > David Crone should know that no net.politics traffic flows across the > Atlantic unless it is cross-posted (thanks in part to a couple of > Nazis we have over here whose messages are illegal in Europe) so the > net.politics he sees is vastly different than the one we see. > usa.politics is dominated by right-wingers and libertarians. Thus > this list is the only place where real international political > discussion can take place. > > - Joe Buck <ihnp4!pesnta!epimass!jbuck> Thanks for acknowledging that libertarians and conservatives are different. However, usa.politics is dominated by these two groups because these two groups dominate political opinion in this country. Clayton E. Cramer
mrl@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (05/01/86)
Followup-To: In article <746@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> Any response to this >> that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read >> net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps >> howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). >They have elections in the Soviet Union as well. I suggest you read a little >more about the conditions under which elections were held -- you would >see the "democracy" of the Sandinista regieme is highly questionable. Once upon a time Chicago's elections would have made Nicaragua's look squeaky-clean. And the rest of the US has had its share of questionable elections. Nicaragua may not be perfect, but then we aren't either. We've had two hundred years of practice, and absentee ballots can still appear out of thin air :-). As they say in Chicago, vote early and often! -- * * * * * * * Scott Anderson * * ** ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/06/86)
> In article <574@dlvax1.datlog.co.uk> dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) writes: > >Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to thi > >that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read > >net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps > >howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). > > Neither can I see how this support for Ortega will change into demands for > any *real* democracy (i.e. what's missing today), as long as the country is > under constant threat from contras. > > The US government seems to be very glad to spend money on establishing > democracy in Nicaragua. Why not turn around when there is time left? Put > those millions of dollars in health care and educational programs *in* > Sandinista-land instead, and soon there won't be any need for communism. > As things are now, Ortega is simply forced to rely on Soviet assistance. > You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. > Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? Clayton E. Cramer
andrew@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Andrew Fleming) (05/11/86)
In article <767@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> In article <574@dlvax1.datlog.co.uk> dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) writes: >> >Isn't it up to the Nicaraguan's what government they have. Any response to thi >> >that the Sandinistas are not democratic I suggest the respondent read >> >net.politics concerning the Ortega regime's 67% support in Nicaragua, perhaps >> >howver that is not democratic enough :-) (slightly forced smile here). >> >> Neither can I see how this support for Ortega will change into demands for >> any *real* democracy (i.e. what's missing today), as long as the country is >> under constant threat from contras. >> >> The US government seems to be very glad to spend money on establishing >> democracy in Nicaragua. Why not turn around when there is time left? Put >> those millions of dollars in health care and educational programs *in* >> Sandinista-land instead, and soon there won't be any need for communism. >> As things are now, Ortega is simply forced to rely on Soviet assistance. >> > >You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very >helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was >because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our >government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. > >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden > >Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? > >Clayton E. Cramer Yes I can read , write and form my own views on what America does in the name of its so-called freedom Andy
kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) (05/14/86)
In article <767@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very >helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was >because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our >government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. > >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden > >Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? > >Clayton E. Cramer Not the propaganda bullshit that you do, apparently. -- Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX JANET: K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl Tel: (0235) 21900 ext 5716
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/17/86)
In article <1315@rlvd.UUCP>, kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) writes: > In article <767@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > >You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very > >helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was > >because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our > >government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. > > > >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden > > > >Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? > > > > Not the propaganda bullshit that you do, apparently. > -- Mr. Cramer got it right and you've got it wrong. (Never thought Id be saying this). Immediately after the Sandinista victory the Carter administration made a major effort to befriend the new regime. This was not exactly a gesture of friendship toward the Sandinistas since the Carter administration was actually trying to ensure that a democracy was established after Somoza's fall. That it didn't work out that way is not really Carter's fault. In any case Carter expended a lot of political capital getting an aid bill through Congress which by and large saw it as wasted on a nascent totalitarian regime. (Though this never stopped them from sending aid to Somoza). The whole effort fell apart as the nature of the Sandinista government became clear. We then adopted our present policy of trying to put the fascists back in power. It's enough to make an honest Democrat support the Sandinistas. -- "Ma, I've been to another Ethan Vishniac planet!" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
cramer@kontron.UUCP (05/20/86)
> In article <767@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > >You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very > >helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was > >because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our > >government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. > > > >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden > > > >Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? > > > >Clayton E. Cramer > > > Not the propaganda bullshit that you do, apparently. > -- > Keith Dancey, UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd That the U.S. Government was supportive of, and helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power is a matter of FACT. I suggest that you need to study the history of the situation a little more before making statements. Clayton E. Cramer
andersa@kuling.UUCP (Anders Andersson) (05/25/86)
In article <715@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP writes: >In article <1315@rlvd.UUCP>, kgd@rlvd.UUCP (Keith Dancey) writes: >> In article <767@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> >You seem to have the sequence backward. The US government WAS very >> >helpful to the Sandinistas immediately after they took power -- it was >> >because of the totalitarian tendencies of the Sandinistas that our >> >government stopped helping them, and started helping the contras. >> > >> >> Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden >> >Doesn't anyone in Europe READ? >> Not the propaganda bullshit that you do, apparently. >Mr. Cramer got it right and you've got it wrong. <...> I refrained from continuing arguing in the first place, as 1) I didn't expect enough a constructive debate to come out of it, and 2) I thought it would die out quickly if I remained silent. However, 2) was proven to be a wrong expectation from my side; instead this is getting just worse. I've no doubt Mr. Cramer has described the history of US policy in Nicaragua correctly, but I wasn't talking history. I only made a suggestion for the future. What I'm interested in is whether the current policy of supporting contras is likely to establish democracy in Nicaragua or not, and what the time schedule is. Good arguments might even convince me (definitely no smiley face here). Insinuations (sorry for the strong word) about analphabetism won't. I'm sorry I didn't try to clear this up earlier. I don't like seeing my words being used in the pie-war between USA and Europe, and I do by NO means agree with Mr. Dancey about "propaganda" and alike. I've much better confidence in the US democratic system than that! However, we are now talking foreign policy. -- Anders Andersson, Dept. of Computer Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden Phone: +46 18 183170 UUCP: andersa@kuling.UUCP (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!andersa)