Bush - TIME's Person of the Year!

Politics International Politics
41

Find me the quote where I said this. Also, you people said that elections would never take place. Chomsky said that there would be 7 to 9 million refugees and that 4 to 5 million would starve. Why then did 4 million Afghan refugees return. Just because it is not perfect does not mean that it is a hell of a lot better than the last 30 years.

Care to share those statistics. When is the last election that the US challenged? When is the last time the US funded an insurgency against a democracy?

Okay. Can live with this.

[quote]By the way, Fred…
-the US invaded and occupied many countries during its history, including the Phillippines, in which American soldiers were criticized for torturing prisoners. [/quote]

You have to go back to 1898-1902 to find something to bash the US with? Why nothing more recent?

Ummm actually that is not my understanding of it and certainly not the “nuance” that Hubert Vedrine was using when he coined the phrase. He meant hyperpower as in a hypermarket is much bigger and more influential than just a mere supermarket. I think that here your knowledge is perhaps once again showing itself to be something less than “sterling.”

This is why I love you sbmoor. Your ignorant, irrational mishmash arguments are the perfect stereotype of leftist “thinking.” How is it that being against multiculturalism means that I do not wish to learn other languages or care about other cultures? I believe the true explanation of my being against multiculturalism is that I value the West, its tradition, its respect for rights, democracy and tolerance. When you show me another “culture” that adds to that or improves upon it and I certainly do not believe that the West will have the monopoly on advancement for the rest of history, then sign me up for the new, improved version, but until then, African norms or Middle Eastern politics or Latin American rule of law ain’t going to cut it for me. Capish?

How is one’s vote determinant to whether one has a direct stake in something. Do you pay taxes? Probably not so ergo you have no right to vote or have an opinion on anything that the US government does. Do you have children in public schools? No. Then shut up about education. Right? Is this the game you want to play? Finally, how many Democrats have children fighting in this war? How many Democrat congressmen vote against vouchers but send their kids to private schools? And really this is a very different line of thinking. You do not have to have children in the armed forces to believe that fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is fighting for the defense of America and to make the world a better place but you would have to be hard pressed to explain why if your kids are not in the public schools you should insist that others remain there without a choice. Perhaps a better analogy would be if Republican congressmen voted for a draft and then insisted that their children were exempt. See the difference? I think that might be a bit more logical and easier to understand, don’t you?

who is funding a terrorist group right now?

The tax cuts were for everyone. The ease with which you suck in leftist propaganda is truly a spectacle to behold.

No it proves that the world gives us difficult moral decisions that we sometimes fail. Yet, our failure does not mean we throw in the towel and stop trying to do anything for fear that we may act inappropriately. We go with the world we are given and we try to make the best of it. This is why you cannot understand this. Leftist thought today is all based on nihilism. Nothing is better. Nothing really matters. Nothing should be attempted. It would be very hard for someone like you to understand why someone like me would still prefer to act even though the world is not perfect and the results of our actions will not be perfect yet we think that they are morally “better.” I find it interesting though that you refrain from leveling these same criticisms at the Sandinista and Castro regimes, but they were bringing “progress” right and improved medical care and higher “literacy” rates, right? haha

Yeah yeah. You lived in one village for what 5 weeks? Then traveled around the country for a week before your visa ran out? Yeah, where’s the evidence of all these murders of nurses and other such stuff? Did you get that from the Sandinista propaganda site too? Not saying that nothing happened, but it was a war. Did you also collect all the info on the Sandinista actions against their own people? What election? What election did the Sandinistas “win?” As far as I know, there was one election after the rebellion/insurgency against the Sandinistas and they lost but feel free to enlighten me if I am mistaken. I could very well be.

the ones that delivered the higher literacy levels? Please refer to the other site where this progress was debunked. Still want to argue it. then prove it. Get me some verifiable statistics. You cannot. I know that you cannot. Look at the report from Stanford on the “progress” made.

Yeah. I’ll bet you spoke with “spokespeople.” Hah! What did some politician come and speak to your interim class? Really? BFD? I have heard Sandinista leaders speak as well. Did not make me want to buy into their argument. Did not believe most of what they said.

Are you sure about that? I do read Spanish fluently, understand quite a bit of it.

You “think” and that makes you more “objective?” My little naif. I doubt very much that you could even provide a definition of the word objective.

rantings? compared with what you are spouting? Really? How do you know that my travels gave me quite a lot to “glean” from. Maybe I learned about communism and saw what it was really like? Perhaps, I lived in a communist country and had to deal with the system while you came down on some one-month beach holiday where all your problems were taken care of by your school? Hmmm? You want to talk about understanding communist systems? Really? haha! This should be good. Keep on writing. I love it when the left makes themselves look as foolish as you have been. I could not argue this stuff better or more convincingly than you have with this spiel.

did I say “always.” No. I did not, but overall YES I do think that the US is extremely benevolent especially in light of what we could do given our power. A comparison of past empires shows just that. Perhaps, only the British were as enlightened. Perhaps in many ways they were more so.

I have seen no such evidence and what has been posted has certainly not been “massive.” Care to elaborate on just what you mean? do you even know?

[quote]You must be shooting at the natives [/quote]-

What? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Not unusual given your usual propensity to lash out emotionally in all directions. Care to clarify?

what points? you mean Nicaraguan and Cuban literacy levels? hahah

Oops but if we are controlling and overthrowing people who do not agree with us how dare Bush let this Musharaff have his own personal opinion? The outrage! Also, if you knew anything about the Middle East you would know that what is said officially is often very different than what goes on behind closed doors so what Musharaff says could very well be his true opinion but as long as he continues to cooperate behind closed doors, I don’t really care. It still advances our goals and makes the world a better place. Got that?

42

[quote=“sbmoor262004”]Yes, Fred’s definition of success is elections no matter what misery the country is in. If the elections run against US wishes, of course, the tradition is to fund an insurgency or call the elections rigged. Bush being the man of the year has nothing to do with him being a great man, which much of the world doubts. It is because of the effect he has had on the world, which is undeniable.
By the way, Fred…
-the US invaded and occupied many countries during its history, including the Phillippines, in which American soldiers were criticized for torturing prisoners.
-in French ‘hyperpuissance’ means ‘superpower,’ so you’re arguing that the US is not a superpower. Of course being against multiculturalism you wouldn’t bother translating words
-Republican are about doing the right thing yet how many Congressmen have sons or daughters in Iraq? funding terrorist groups and giving tax cuts to the rich is the right thing? it proves that what’s ‘right’ is relative
-you mention the Nicaraguans I did not talk to; you must mean the CIA-created army of Nicaraguan exiles who were mostly cronies of the dictator Somoza and the mercenaries who killed nurses and bombed fishing harbors, schools and hospitals to reinstate a ‘democratic’ dictatorship again despite the fact that in elections the vast majority of the country voted for the Sandinistas for their social programs - since I lived there and spoke with spokespeople and citizens supporting all political parties, and since you went there and don’t even speak Spanish, I think that makes me far more objective than you in your rantings - despite all of your travels you seem to have gleaned nothing from any of the places you went; you are convinced the US always acts philanthropically and benevolently despite massive evidence to the contrary that has been brought up on this site and in the news; you must be shooting at the natives
-as for your other points I believe they’ve been sufficiently trashed; to note also that Musharaff, Bush’s hero, regarded the war as a mistake as well :rainbow: :bravo:[/quote]

:bravo:

43

JM:

Trust me when I say applauding one of sbmoor’s arguments is an indication that your mind is perhaps as weak as his. haha

44

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]
Yeah, this is a “non-partisan” site all right – non-partisan my left asshole.[/quote]

Quote me where I said it was non-partisan. Come on, front up. Fred said he didn’t like the original source. He didn’t say he would only accept non-partisan (if that is even possible) or republican sources.

Now we know you don’t like the source, but do you have a source that proves that their figures are bogus? Or are you just going to attack the source and not the content?

:smiley:[/quote]

Still waiting Mapo. You have a record of picking fights and then running away. I wander what your political hero would think?

45

Well if it’s a free country, why all the efforts to join international organisations being shot down? What the hell is the “president” talking about? Why the hell is the US and the region so concerned about China’s stance? Which, as you obviously haven’t noticed, is that Taiwan is a province of China? Do you seriously think your current president would’ve let China get away with pointing Nth-hundred missiles at a country and threaten to invade it if it dares to “declare itself independent”? You should really get out more, mate!

[quote]Is the Taliban in control of Afghanistan?[/quote] No, but the country is certainly not “rid” of them, as you profess.

Maybe, but you honestly think those were the only al-Qaeda guys there? And who the hell is your “us”? Haven’t you heard that Mr. bin Laden (to you) is probably living in Pakistan?
And as for Pakistan as an example, given “your” train of thought, as long as they “round up” al-Qaeda guys, it’s cool for them to continue on their developing nukes, contrary to what they tell India.

46

Banshette:

Stop setting up strawmen. I never said Afghanistan was 100 percent free of the Taliban. What I said is that they are not in control of Afghanistan in remarks I made to someone who was pointing out that the US was not yet in 100 percent control of the country.

And who said ALL the al Qaeda were rounded up in Pakistan? I said that they supplied 500 plus top level al Qaeda. That is a sign of progress. No wonder you lefties seem so bewildered all the time. You have not learned to read yet. Another product of the liberal social advancement experiment? No doubt?

47

So now the British Empire was enlightening. Prove it. You’re saying that the Indians, Chinese, Malays, etc. were enlightened by the English. This follows Republican thinking: it doesn’t matter if someone wants your help, just march in and ‘enlighten’ them. Is this what the US did when it invaded Mexico last century? There was widespread belief that Americans were a superior race. Is the US enlightening people now? Granted, our gov’t’s track record on invasions has much improved since Reagan and earlier times. Though the example of the Philippine invasion is old, it does illustrate that invading countries in the name of liberating them (‘those darkies just can’t be left to govern themselves’) is an American tradition born about that time. Expansionism is a fact of powerful states, and China has been flexing its muscles recently with the sub going into Japanese waters (and spending more percentage-wise of its GNP on its military than the US). I am opposed to the concept of a ‘benevolent’ superpower guiding the world; it creates dependence, and dependency usually creates resentment. Anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high. Republicans are for the most part incapable of acknowledging any link between anti-American sentiment and terrorism. The rift in European-US relations also tears at a potentially beneficial alliance against a common goal. The primarily unilateral invasion has drained both money and lives; for Republicans these are ‘acceptable losses’ even if democracy fails to materialize in Iraq. The poor planning regarding expectations and the the occupation are obvious. All Americans want our troops to succeed, but many of us are angry at Bush for having forced them into that situation using a rather pathetic argument of existing WMDs. Had the goal simply been the liberation of Iraq, the funding would not have been approved and the majority of Americans would not have supported the war. To Fred, the fact that the President lied to get funding and support is unimportant. After all, the ignorant masses shouldn’t be the ones influencing foreign policy - it should be benevolent men like Reagan, the Republicans’ greatest hero and exemplar of politicians who feel they must bypass the Legislative branch and manipulate the population into seeing false threats (the ‘threat’ of Grenada, for example (and Fred, prove the Cubans had anything to do with them militarily)). Fred’s ‘better dead than Red’ philosophy is interesting; he seems comfortable with others having faced atrocities and death as long as it suits his political beliefs. His support for Pinochet in Chile is a good illustration. He might as well praise Saddam for at least having established order in Iraq or Stalin for having industrialized the USSR. US intercession on behalf of Guatemala (where, yes, the CIA was proved to have been involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected leader) has shown many benefits: over 200,000 people were massacred, mostly by the government which was helped to power by the US. This is far more than Saddam killed, yet the US did not feel any need to ‘liberate’ the country then. El Salvador is another good example of the fruits of US involvement. Fred in his armchair must be musing about how sad it is these people ‘had to die in the name of democracy.’ When did these countries truly become democratic anyway? Fred strikes me as the kid who liked to play Risk or other war games a bit too often; something scrambled his eggs and he sees the world as his chess board. He doesn’t feel any strong urge, however, to enlist and actually do any of the fighting or dying.

48

^^ :astonished: :bravo: :notworthy:

49

Hmm…outside of big corporations and born-again Christians, it seems that Bush has another major constituency:

Ex-hostage: Militants wanted Bush re-elected
msnbc.msn.com/id/6742421/

happy day-after-Christmas,
DB

50

Who’s surprised by that?

51

Just one comment: This thread has gone on and on and turned into another defense and attack game of Bush and his administration. Remember, the thread is about Bush being Time’s man of the year. And, since the person of the year is chosen based on influence, and since Bush is influential whether you love him or hate him, it is a pretty cut-and-dry topic. Not much to talk about.

So: perhaps a new thread should be started with the title “I hate Bush” or “I love Bush” or “Bush has mislead us” or whatever. I am sure that a similar thousand such threads have already been introduced :unamused: but at least everyone would be on topic then. Tangents, tangents, tangents.

52

Why dont you start one then? I, for one, have plenty to say on the subject.

53

To the very easily impressed Jintete Mortal and the obfuscating sbmoor:

The British brought rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy to many of their colonies. What existed in India before? Rule of law? constitution? or widow burning? forced marriages, etc? This is not to say that India was not “civilized” nor that any of the other nations were or were not. But one must recognize that if one values democracy, rule of law, women’s rights, etc. then one must admit that the British advanced these values considerably. The belief in the rights of the individual were the core centerpiece of the Enlightenment. Perhaps you have heard of this 18th century movement? Ergo what better word to use then “enlightening” if in fact the goals of this movement are being advanced?

See above. My point is that the British brought many values that the Left claims to care about but obviously does not. I find sbmoor’s inability to grasp this typical of the unthinking Third World celebratism of many on the left. If it is brown, ergo it is good. If it is White ergo it is bad. This is highly simplistic. No one is dismissing the accomplishments of India, Malaysia or China but if one values democracy, constitutiional law, rule of law, respect for human rights and women’s rights, etc. then one must admit that the British advanced these values admirably around the world. Stop setting up strawmen.

Can anyone understand the logic that pervades smbooor’s desperate and inconsistent and highly surface flailings through historical records. All of these events were highly complicated and therefore not amenable to the simplistic paintstrokes of sbmoor’s brush. Though such simplistic thoguht obviously has jintete mortal impressed.

And if things have improved much since Reagan does this mean that Sbmoor is in favor of the Bush administration’s invasion of Panama, and The Bush II’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This does not seem to get with his ramblings below. Which is it? Has US foreign policy improved or hasn’t it? See below for the glaring inconsistencies of this simplistic line of thinking.

Now we are back to 1898 to 1902? How did this happen?

So now it is not just the Americans who cannot leave the darkies alone but the darkies that cannot leave the other darkies alone? So what is it? White racism? or merely that powerful states tend to flex their muscles? And if this is the case, which would you prefer to see? China flexing its muscles and brining its intolerant dictatorship and crony capitalism to other nations of the US bringing its values? Are they equally good and equally bad?

What do you favor then? the UN taking a lead? A multipolar world as is France’s desire? Domination by a group of democratic nations under NATO? What?

As is anti-Bush sentiment among people (I refrain from using the word thinkers) such as yourself. This does not make irrational behavior any better simply because the numbers are high.

No. The difference is that the terrorism is not really about what we do but who we are. Otherwise, please explain why the Spanish are still being targeted by terrorists? The Thais? etc. etc.

No shit. Think that the Europeans might have some responsibility for this? Look at the actions of France and Germany but especially the former? Does this seem like enlightened multilateralism to you or unilateralism? Please define.

Ah but is it for a worthy cause or not? Would more lives have been lost had we not acted? Given that the majority of EU and NATO members supported the invasion, what are you really saying? Isn’t it true that at the time of the invasion Germany, Belgium and France were the nations that were acting unilaterally? Now, that we know about France and its corrupt involvement in the UN Oil for Food program, doesn’t that make it clear that France was not a “disinterested” actor but one that was up to its eyeballs in corrupt deals with Saddam Hussein?

No losses are “acceptable,” but they can be worthy of the sacrifice. I think that they are. Given that we accomplished something very great in Afghanistan, we may be able to do the same thing in Iraq. But the point is that if we fail, then will Iraq be better off? I don’t think so. Your thinking is too simplistic again. Given that despite all the dire predictions, there was a handover, there was an interim constitution, there are elections scheduled, the Sunnis will be participating, I think that you should just wait and see.

Obvious to you perhaps and obvious to the leftwing press. I would say that invasion of a nation of 27 million and occupying it while providing police and fire and soldier services while losing 1,300 total is a pretty good effort. Just because something is not perfect does not make it that exact opposite a total disaster and a total imperfection. We do not have to be perfect to act imperfectly but for the overall good. That is something that sbmoor fails to understand. The left would like to believe that because in the past America has made mistakes that it therefore has no right to act at all. Nice try. We don’t buy it.

I disagree. I think many on the Left want Bush to fail in Iraq and do not give a shit about the Iraqis. Given that ALL intelligence agencies in ALL countries and the UN inspectors believed that Iraq had wmds I do not think that Bush lied. And if he did, why has there been no proof. In fact, Charles Duelfer’s report shows that Saddam had every intention of restarting his wmd programs once sanctions were ended. Anyway, it was up to Saddam to prove that he had complied not the US nor the UN to prove that he had not. Also, Bush said we had to act BEFORE Iraq became an IMMINENT threat. Given that we wanted to act BEFORE this happened, I think that we have accomplished Bush’s stated goals.

You do not know this. Where is your proof.

I do not believe that Bush lied. I still view Saddam as a threat despite the fact that he did not actually have wmds. He was a threat and would eventually have been a problem. We stopped him from reaching the point where he would become another “untouchable” North Korea. WE should be congratulated for our vision.

Given that Clinton never got approval from the UN nor the US Congress for his actions in Kosovo, I am surprised that you failed to bring this up. I do not support a president lying to Congress. Reagan did in Iran Contragate. Yet, I am happy that his actions resulted in defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

I will answer this later.

[quote]
Fred’s ‘better dead than Red’ philosophy is interesting; he seems comfortable with others having faced atrocities and death as long as it suits his political beliefs.[/quote]

No I do not support better dead than red, but given that the Sandinistas killed 8,000 in their first years compared with Pinochet’s 3,000 and given that the Sandinistas also resulted in the disappearance of 20,000 and the forced starvation of perhaps 30,000 Indians on the Mosquito Coast, I would say that in fact despite all the Left’s inveterate hatred for Pinochet, he was far less bloody than the Sandinistas and Castro. AND given that Chile has one of the best economies and highest standards of living in Latin America while Cuba has one of the lowest, I think that yes, my anti-communist stance is vindicated.

I believe that Pinochet was not perfect but he resulted in a better outcome than an Allende with policies that would have destroyed the economy. He had his three plus years and Chile’s economy was in the tank. Ergo, I think that while not perfect and actually in some ways quite bad, the overall outcome of Pinochet was far better than a Chile that would be like Cuba today.

No. Actually, I would not. Saddam killed far more than 3,000 and brought stability to Chile. He also left the country in far better shape than Saddam did with Iraq. Given that Saddam killed 3 million Iraqis and a million Iranians I would have to say the comparison is not a valid one. What could the US have done about Stalin and given that Stalin was a communist and I have been cited for my “better dead than red” attitude, how can anyone assume that I would thus find anything good to say about Stalin? Honestly sbmoor your flights of inconsist irrational speechifying crap are so amazing that I am truly impressed that you were able to sway someone like Jintete Mortal. I will merely have to assume that JM is another product of our failed public education system.

I have already cited Guatemala as a case where the US was incorrect and where we did overthrow a democratically-elected leader. The US did help the new government to power. This is a fair point in your otherwise mindless drivel.

[quote]
This is far more than Saddam killed,[/quote]

No actually, it is not. Saddam killed nearly 3 million people and allowed another million to starve while he built palaces and played footsie with French and Russian interests.

El Salvador is now a democracy. Fair point. A lot of people died. Why then are you not equally outraged by the Cuban and Soviet support for communist forces in these regions who were never hesitant to commit the very atrocities that you are condemning pro-US regimes for?

No. Actually, not a fan. Don’t play war games. Nice try.

Don’t play chess either.

Quite right. I don’t feel the need to enlist. But I do feel the need to defend our soldiers against those who would besmirch them and their honorable efforts.

54

[quote]In the early morning of October 25, 1983, the United States invaded the island of Grenada. The initial assault consisted of some 1,200 troops, and they were met by stiff resistance from the Grenadian army and Cuban military units on the island. Heavy fighting continued for several days, but as the invasion force grew to more than 7,000, the defenders either surrendered or fled into the mountains. Scattered fighting continued as U.S. troops hunted down stragglers, but for the most part, the island quickly fell under American control. By mid-December, U.S. combat forces went home and a pro-American government took power.

CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT:

  1. The Marxist, pro-Cuban governments of Bishop and Coard were eliminated and a regime friendly to American interests took over.

  2. The Reagan Administration proved willing to use force to combat what it considered hostile governments in the area.

  3. America’s European allies expressed disapproval of the unilateral invasion of Grenada.

  4. The invasion sent a message to Cuba and Nicaragua that they could only go so far in exporting revolution in Central America and the Caribbean without provoking an American military response.

CASUALTY FIGURES:

U.S.-- 19 dead (officially).
Grenada-- 49 dead and several hundred wounded.

Cuba-- 29 dead and over a hundred wounded.[/quote]

AND…

pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peo … nde07.html

AND

[quote]Maurice Bishop, who was overthrown as prime minister of Grenada and then murdered during the 1983 coup, had himself come to power by force four years earlier.

He was removed from office by a hardline pro-Moscow faction within his New Jewel Movement, whose forces shot and killed him and several of his ministers during the ensuing unrest[/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3208441.stm

55

Hahaha!! :laughing: That was a good one, Fred. More proof that the Radical Right is willing to believe any piece of propaganda. Grenada, the ‘menacing threat’ to the US (along with Africanized Killer Bees)…
Point 1: Reagan said that a military landing strip was being built to enable the Commies to fly in hardware to spread Communism. Actually, the plans were for an international civilian airport. But, but… it COULD have been used by those Commies, I guess!
Point 2: Fred’s ‘Cuban military’ that was fighting the massive US force? The only Cubans in town were a delegation of 500 delegates which included doctors, engineers and construction workers. I suppose they might have thrown a wrench or attempted to jackhammer the Americans. Those Philips head screwdrivers might put an eye out. The significant resistance is likely given that they were being attacked. The workers are Grenadian soldiers are to be faulted for fighting back, I guess. The US was not opposed to the fact that there had been a coup; the fact that the new government was socialist, however, led Reagan to find any excuse to invade the tiny island.
democracynow.org/article.pl? … 10/1425246
There were some Cuban military personnel, mainly to train the Grenadian soldiers.
history.navy.mil/faqs/faq95-1.htm
Most American losses were actually due to accidents or friendly fire.
standto.com/qorgrenada.html
It’s interesting how the right-wing websites automatically assume that the airport was to be used by the Cubans to spread Communism though there is no proof to that effect. Did Cuba not already have an airport? The supposed 6-warehouse enormous arms cache was more propaganda; the arms were actually assorted small arms taken from local militias, which filled about a quarter of 3 small warehouses.
Although Bishop was certainly leftist, he deposed a despised eccentric dictator, and his social programs greatly benefitted the island. He by no means had a strictly pro-Soviet government and had friendly relations with several capitalist countries.
globalpolicy.org/empire/hist … renada.htm
Of course, Fred is willing to buy any argument showing the US to be an ‘enlightening’ power. It clearly fits into his argument that poorer countries need to be occupied by a colonial power to evolve. The fact that local populations were forced into subservience and local resources were stolen was evidently ‘worth the price’ though he fails to explain why the natives in most countries the British colonized were considerably happy to boot them out. Allende is also a favorite example of a progressive leader who helped the country despite the fact that thousands lived in abject fear and terror. If there is material progress, any degree of brutality is acceptable. Evidently if the US recession becomes a depression a brutal dictator who makes the country prosper would be acceptable. :loco:
As for the Sandinistas, Fred’s figures are dubious as I haven’t found them corroborated outside of the article he mentioned. Many figures on Sandinista atrocities were created to promote anti-Sandinista sentiment at the time. During 1980-1 alone Somoza, the US-backed dictator, arguably killed over 20,000 civilians. There was persecution of the Miskito population, which wanted independence and assisted the Contras (whose atrocities are documented in congressional records:)
informationclearinghouse.inf … le3341.htm
Even those involved under Reagan attest to a general plan to assassinate people no matter whether their affiliation was military or otherwise.
consortiumnews.com/archive/lost14.html
Ben Linder, an American who was part of a group of over 10,000 Americans seeking to help the Sandinistas rebuild the country after 5 decades of murder and corruption (but better than the Sandinistas, right Fred?), is an example of the kind of target the Contras chose. Reagan compared these men to our Founding Fathers. Strange, but I never knew Washington and Jefferson hacked off doctors’ limbs, torched hospitals and raped nurses and teachers. Oh, well, must be a Republican thing.

56

[quote]Hahaha!! That was a good one, Fred. More proof that the Radical Right is willing to believe any piece of propaganda. Grenada, the ‘menacing threat’ to the US (along with Africanized Killer Bees)…
Point 1: Reagan said that a military landing strip was being built to enable the Commies to fly in hardware to spread Communism. Actually, the plans were for an international civilian airport. But, but… it COULD have been used by those Commies, I guess!
Point 2: Fred’s ‘Cuban military’ that was fighting the massive US force? The only Cubans in town were a delegation of 500 delegates which included doctors, engineers and construction workers. I suppose they might have thrown a wrench or attempted to jackhammer the Americans. Those Philips head screwdrivers might put an eye out. The significant resistance is likely given that they were being attacked. The workers are Grenadian soldiers are to be faulted for fighting back, I guess. The US was not opposed to the fact that there had been a coup; the fact that the new government was socialist, however, led Reagan to find any excuse to invade the tiny island. [/quote]

You asked me to prove that Cubans were involved. I have given you two sites: one the PBS and one the BBC which are both leftwing. You are welcome. I did not raise the point as to why Reagan chose to invade. I merely provided proof that Cuba was involved militarily. That is what you requested. Are you now changing your argument to why the US would invade because you now accept that CUBANS were involved there militarily?

[quote]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/1425246
There were some Cuban military personnel, mainly to train the Grenadian soldiers.
history.navy.mil/faqs/faq95-1.htm
Most American losses were actually due to accidents or friendly fire.
standto.com/qorgrenada.html [/quote]

I will let the readers on this forum debate the value of information from the PBS and BBC as opposed to the three sites that you have linked to. Not quite the same league. Desperate? Flailing efforts?

NO one is presuming anything. You demanded that I prove that Cuba was involved militarily in Grenada. I have done so. Prove that the warehouses were filled with “small arms” and that it filled “about a quarter of three small warehouses.” I do not accept the three sites that you have linked as objective nor qualified to make such a statement.

[quote]Although Bishop was certainly leftist, he deposed a despised eccentric dictator, and his social programs greatly benefitted the island. He by no means had a strictly pro-Soviet government and had friendly relations with several capitalist countries.
globalpolicy.org/empire/hist … renada.htm [/quote]

ah my little uninformed poster… the US did not invade Grenada to depose Bishop. Talk about sloppy presentation. Bishop was deposed by marxists in alliance with the Soviet Union. He and several of his ministers were killed as were dozens of supporters by the new avowedly pro-Soviet Marxist sect within his government. Therefore, the US did nothing for the four years that Bishop was in power, but did act when Bishop was murdered. Your point about what Bishop did or did not do is therefore irrelevant. Bishop was murdered. Got it? In a coup. Got it? When the leadership of this coup announced that they were pro-Soviet, etc. the US acted. Got it? Therefore, we were supporting democracy. A coup like the Sandinistas engineered is not the same as an election. Got it? If you want to criticize the US for overthrowing Arbenez in Guatemala in 1954 you are justified but then you would have to criticize the Sandinista and Communist coups in Nicaragua and Grenada surely?

what the F***? Who is the US occupying right now? Hmmm? Iraq and Afghanistan? Anyone else?

What are you talking about? I thought this was about Grenada and Cuban military involvement. I proved that it occurred. Now, you are running around doubting the motives for invading Grenada while sidestepping the issue that the Cuban military was present. That is all I was asked to prove and I have.

Idiot. Allende was on “your” side. Don’t you mean Pinochet? But here again you fail to understand. It is not that Pinochet was perfect but in comparison with Castro and the Sandinistas he was BETTER. He killed fewer people than the Sandinistas and far fewer than Castro so why not judge him by those figures? Why don’t you criticize the Sandinistas 7 times more than Pinochet if you care about “killings” and why not Castro for about 25 times more? If it is about economic development then I think Chile’s record speaks for itself. You want to hold up those medical and literacy statistics that you trotted out earlier? Or do you want me to recite the evidence that shows this was empty propaganda. Back to you.

that does not surprise me. I am highly doubtful that you have engaged in any serious study of this issue despite your coupla weeks picking coffee in Nicaragua and “meeting” with the Sandinista leadership. This does not change the fact no matter how much you squeal that Cuba and Nicaragua’s literacy figures are highly doubtful and cannot be independently verified. Otherwise, give me something that shows that these figures are true from an independent and recognized source. I will not take Cuban and Nicaraguan Sandinista “official” statistics at face value.

[quote]
Many figures on Sandinista atrocities were created to promote anti-Sandinista sentiment at the time. During 1980-1 alone Somoza, the US-backed dictator, arguably killed over 20,000 civilians. There was persecution of the Miskito population, which wanted independence and assisted the Contras (whose atrocities are documented in congressional records:)
informationclearinghouse.inf … le3341.htm [/quote]

But there is proof that the Sandinistas dispossessed 20,000 Miskite Indians. Are you sure that you are not thinking of the Sandinistas and not Somoza? And given that the Sandinistas killed a similar number say 8,000 plus 25,000 what then do you have to say about their atrocities?

The false atrocities were the ones that were never proved but always trotted out about nuns being raped, etc. Can you prove that Contra soldiers did this? I think you are confusing this with incidents that occurred in El Salvador, which is a totally different country.

[quote]Even those involved under Reagan attest to a general plan to assassinate people no matter whether their affiliation was military or otherwise.
consortiumnews.com/archive/lost14.html
Ben Linder, an American who was part of a group of over 10,000 Americans seeking to help the Sandinistas rebuild the country after 5 decades of murder and corruption (but better than the Sandinistas, right Fred?), is an example of the kind of target the Contras chose. Reagan compared these men to our Founding Fathers. Strange, but I never knew Washington and Jefferson hacked off doctors’ limbs, torched hospitals and raped nurses and teachers. Oh, well, must be a Republican thin[/quote]

Can you prove these hacked limbs and torched hospitals and raped nuns and teachers? I doubt it. And you want me to take Ben Linder’s word for this? What was he a friend of yours “picking coffee” in Nicaragua and “meeting with Sandinista leaders?” Thanks but I will pass. When you have something from a reputable news organization, I will accept but until then no way.

57

Apologies, Fred, for excessive sloppiness. Only having about half an hour a day to address the interesting points brought up certainly has taken its toll. Yes, it was Pinochet not Allende. I’d agree that Allende was not a particularily great leader - he was not very keen economically - but he did not run death squads. Yes, I acknowledge the Cubans were involved militarily, training the Grenadians. I’m just arguing against the notion that the tiny island, about the size of Martha’s Vineyard, was no real threat and thus did not merit the absurd invasion. I do try to negotiate crackpots of both sides to come up with information, but I do seek to present evidence contradicting your claims about ‘massive amounts of arms’ that were somehow to be used - perhaps given to trained Marxist porpoises to assault democratic nations.
Feel secure that given my time limitations I am unable to give you the real trouncing you have long been only been getting hints of. Once I pick up my laptop in the States you will find no floundering have efforts the likes of which you have seen today. My main ally in this regard has been the self-evident bias in the articles you present as ‘evidence.’ You refute congressional information about Contra atrocities and stand by one quoted source of Sandinista atrocities. Undoubtedly in any war there are atrocities, but you’d think you’d have more than one source.
Just type ‘Contra’ in Yahoo and most sources will acknowledge the atrocities. A simple task. If you think Somoza was a nice guy, check anything under him as well. As for my 4-month research, I met a wide variety of people, yet this seems to threaten you, a likely candidate for sex tourism (are you using George Washington’s persuasion to win love?) as opposed to actually listening to the natives’ opinion. I recommend going to Nicaragua and asking if they felt the Sandinista revolution was bad for Nicaraguans. Then ask their opinion on US intervention. I’d really like to find out about that. Of course, you’ve already decided what’s best for everyone in the world without asking them, so what’s the point? It doesn’t matter what Cubans, Nicaraguans, Iraqis or anyone wants; it’s about what you think is best. Typical Republican thinking. Diplomacy? Who needs it! Anyway, as for Cuban and Nicaraguan literacy, I acknowledge difficulty in assessing the increase, but so far I have found no evidence that they have NOT increased. Most show significant increases, as they did during Bishop’s leadership. Most evidence of these rates would obviously come from the government, which you automatically refute (yet you never refute claims by gov’t’s friendly to your beliefs… hm). You have not refuted this assertion. Please also try and educate the world about how flawed the Cuban medical system is and how much better Cubans were off under Battista, and how much Somoza helped Nicaragua, etc. etc.
Anyway, I’ve got to teach and will be back to teach you another lesson. :sunglasses:

58

No sbmoor:

I fully acknowledge atrocities committed by Pinochet and US backed governments. The reason, however, for my support of those regimes is that something worse was waiting. I believe the Sandinistas were worse for Nicaragua if not just as bad in terms of political oppression and then to take over the economy too. That was double the trouble in my opinion. Given that the numbers killed by Somoza, the Sandinistas, perhaps the Contras and certainly the Cubans were all much higher than those killed by Pinochet, why is he the one that is constantly bashed and not these other groups? Like Carter, you may find that while the Shah was bad in Iran, what came afterwards was not even perfect but in fact much worse. That is the difference. That is the key point. The various South Vietnamese regimes were all bad, but would you say that North Vietnam’s takeover was good or bad for the country? Hmm?

I don’t care why the US chose to invade Grenada. I have proved Cuban military involvement and given the coup against Bishop, I would have thought you too would want to get the guys who ended all the progress that you pointed out was taking place under Bishop.

I am still waiting to find out who the US is “occupying” these days.

Finally, I will concede that the Contras committed atrocities and were involved in various nefarious activities, but I think the Sandinistas were just as bad and in many ways much worse. The Sandinistas took over with guns and were defeated with votes. I think that sums it up for me. They got what they deserved. Nicaragua is not perfect but it is better off without the Sandinistas and given that communism has failed EVERY WHERE in the world, isn’t it better that Nicaragua got rid of its communists earlier rather than later? Just a thought.

59

First of all, it is debatable whether the Sandinista government could really be qualified as Communist since they did allow some private enterprise and actively sought support from the US as well as the USSR. The reason Chamorro won was because the US’ economic war against Nicaragua made Nicaraguans realize the only way the country could develop economically was by caving in to US pressure. Though you bring up Sandinista atrocities, your source is not backed up by other sources and if you take a look at practically any of the US’ allies in the region it’s clear the atrocities against their own people were far worse (Trujillo in Dominican Republic, Rios Mont in Guatemala (Reagan says he was just getting a ‘bum rap’ while he was massacring tens of thousands of civilians and dissidents), Suazo Cordova in Honduras, ‘Papa Doc’ and ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier in Haiti where 60,000 Haitians were killed and many more tortured, Stroessner in Paraguay who killed several thousand natives (with the help of missionaries; not during Reagan’s tenure, though), Cristiani and D’Aubisson in El Salvador… this is a fraction of the number of murderous leaders the US government has funded. So while you trump up how bad the Sandinistas might have been, it’s worthwhile thinking whether a US-friendly government really would have been in the Nicaraguans’ interest (again, compare the social programs sponsored by Somoza and those sponsored by the Sandinistas). Not to discount any atrocities that could have been done by ANY government, but making it a black-and-white issue led to terrible acts. Especially when reading about the Sandinistas, most of the ‘facts’ offered by those in the administration were trumped up to bolster negative attitudes about a government brought into power by a popular revolution.
Reagan’s administration systematically tried to hide and discount proof that their allies were murdering and torturing their civilian populations. So excuse me if I find it a bit ridiculous that the current administration all of a sudden tries to use human rights as a back-up justification for a costly war that may be in vain and that will take at least 2 generations to pay off. The fact is that the war was not truly necessary for US security; if a fundamentalist government comes into power basically billions of dollars will have been wasted at a time when 1 or 2 billion spent now in Southeast Asia could TRULY be saving lives.
Basically, to endorse any dictator who uses torture negates the ability to ask for international aid to topple another dictator who uses torture. This hypocrisy is why many people around the world who know firsthand about the US’ policies are dubious about efforts to ‘help.’ The results of US help are contradictory. To assume that supporting the above-mentioned dictators was the best alternative is really an insult to the people living in those countries. Checking the human rights track record between US-supported and USSR-supported dictators doesn’t corroborate your assertion that the former have killed less. Regarding Pinochet, while he may have killed less than other regimes, the sophisticated means of torture and ‘silencing’ civilian opposition is far different from losses between armed government troops and an armed insurgency. Anyway, I’m off the finish my biscuit and tea egg.

60

Who doubts that they were communist? Oh and they asked the US for aid just like Ho Chi Minh and Castro? So it was stupid US administrations that shoved Nicaragua, Cuba and Vietnam into the communists’ arms. Anyone want to buy what sbmoor is selling? I for one am not.

That is one theory but the fact remains that the Sandinistas were NEVER elected, Chamorro was.

so you do not accept it? Why not? Do I then turn around and ask you to back up each of your statements? I think that we need to have a list of what we know and we need to have that information from reputable sources. I do see some information on contra atrocities and several seem to be substantiated but most of what you have supplied is from the same govt that told you that literacy figures had risen dramatically. I ain’t buying that either.

Each of these is a separate issue that should be discussed separately. I fully recognize that these dictators were bad but what if they were still better than what comes afterwards. You have mentioned Duvalier as one of your biggest examples. Yet, without Duvalier is Haiti any better? No problems? Democracy? Prove that the US was able to stop any of the abuses or that it was directly involved. Prove that the US encouraged these abuses to fight communism. Prove that the US did not encourage better respect for human rights but was ignored? What should we have done? Invaded to overthrow the regime? Then, if you agree, please accept the outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq as being just such a part of a more “activist” foreign policy.

Is Castro better than Batista in your opinion? Is Cuba richer?

Was Chile better off under Allende whose abuses the left ignores or under Pinochet whose abuses are trumpeted?

No one is saying that no abuses occurred, certainly not me, but you seem to think that Castro and the Sandinistas represented progress. If that were the case, why are all nations in the world today dismantling their communist and socialist systems? Why then did not the Sandinistas hold free and fair elections within a few years after taking power in your “popular” revolution? Hmmm?

Prove that. I would like to see what you have on this not your opinion.

This does not make sense. Bush was not in office when these “abuses” and this “support for dictators” occurred. In fact, Bush specifically said no business as usual. We will advance democracy over the status quo. That is why we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. You should therefore be supporting Bush since this is exactly what you claim to want. An end to support for military dictators and a refusal to do business as usual with them. As to whether the war was in vain, I think that given that ALL world intelligence agencies believed and still believe with or without the discovery of wmds that Saddam was a threat, then you should listen to them.

How is Bush doing this? And also that is a very simplistic approach. If El Salvador uses torture to fight the insurgents who use torture that is a domestic matter. I do not think we should encourage it but we are no responsible for it when it happens just because we are supporting them in a war that we want to win. We won. Communism is dead. The tactics of how it was won, however, must be debated in the countries where the wars were fought. For those of us on the sidelines, I think there has been enough debate about the excesses of Pinochet and the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador and far too little about the equally egregious abuses of Castro and the Sandinistas and I would like to know why.

Again, this is not to deny that abuses occurred. It is to question why the US is blamed simply because we were supporting their governments. Given that the Cubans and Soviets were proved to have been supporting the other side, this makes it an unfortunate fact that the Cold War was dictating how we reacted. That does not me, however, that we were wrong to act or had the right to act taken away from us because of the bad things that these governments did to their people. Were we wrong to support Stalin in the fight against Hitler? Do you see where I am going with this? Were we wrong to support the Shah of Iran despite his torture and abuses especially in light of what came afterwards? What about Vietnam and Cambodia? So you can open this line of questioning and I will be happy to respond BUT you cannot have it both ways. You cannot point to support for dictators who were responsible for abuses and then ignore the far greater abuses that occurred when we were fighting communist regimes that caused far greater abuses wherever they took over. How were we to know just where this would end? Do you as a leftie ever answer for your support of communist or leftist movements that result in tragedies like Vietnam and Cambodia. What do you have to say about those? After all, who has killed more people in the 20th century? Rightist regimes or communist ones?

It can be seen as hypocrisy if you are that simple-minded but my dear sir if you do not think that communist killed far more people than you just do not know what you are talking about. What about Vietnam? Cambodia? Afghanistan? China? or do you want to just center this debate around Latin America in which case you may be right, but only in Central America not South America. But given what we knew about communist takeovers in Asia, Africa and elsewhere, why should the US have given the ones in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala “the benefit of the doubt?” Given that communism has failed everywhere, why were we wrong to fight it then? Was the Soviet Union advocating democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law, etc?

I have no idea what you mean here but I would question the ability of rightist regimes like Pinochet to silence their critics more effectively than leftist ones. I mean where do you see the most dissidents speaking freely and getting their views published? In Latin America where most opposition newspapers essentially remained even during the worst of military crackdowns or in Nicaragua and Cuba where they are non-existent or do you think that the Sandinistas and Castro allowed effective opposition to voice itself?

Bon appetit!