"Reagan used to be a member of the Democratic party. Does that mean that the Dems controlled the white house during the 80s?"
If he was president then, yes, otherwise, no.
Can you rephrase that response. In particular what do you mean by "then", when Reagan was a Democrat?
"A lot of former Iraqi army soldiers are soldiers in the new army, does that mean that Iraq's new army will automatically be a Baathist army?"
If Saddam is in the army, yes, otherwise, no.
Somoza wasn't in the Contras so I guess you would agree that he regime wasn't "rule by the Contras".
Let's make it simple........there were members of the Contras who once ruled under Samoza. In spite of the fact, there were members of the Contras who did not rule under Samoza, its not unfair to say that the Contras had once ruled.
" Or back to the Nazi example. A lot of Nazis had positions of influence before the Nazi take over. Many more had been in the army. That doesn't mean the Nazis ruled Germany in 1930. They likely didn't change their ideology but they joined an organization that pushed that ideology in an extreme way."
Yes, they did.....Hitler was elected to the Bundestag in 1931 or 1933 and become Chancellor shortly thereafter.
Yes they did what? Do you mean "yes there where Nazi's in positions of influence in 1930? If so I agree with you, in fact that was my statement. Or do you mean that the Nazis did rule Germany in 1930. If so you own information shatters your argument. Hitler was elected after 1930 and didn't get total power until 1933. In 1930 the Nazis where not in power.
The Nazis took over in 1929; Hitler in 1933 was made chancellor for life.
Yes, I know that but they had the same ideology with many of the same members who were in the Samoza gov't.
One of the contra organizations was lead by a former Sandinista.
Which one?
He didn't share an ideology with Somoza. At least one of the other major Contra organizations did have some ideological and personnel connections with Somoza's regime but they where not the same organization nor where they led by the same person. In any case that one organization was not the whole of the contras. "The Contras" include a number of different groups that had little in common other then their dislike for the Sandanistas.
You started us down this direction when you asked about human rights "under the Contras".
Message 20206093
Yes, and you never answered the question but digressed to this somewhat ridiculous tangent.
The question doesn't make sense. It's like asking me how human rights where respected in the US when John Anderson was president. He never was president so the question doesn't make sense. Similarly the question about "human rights under the Contra's doesn't make sense because the country was not ruled by the Contras.
Okay. How were human rights under those members of the Contras who ruled prior to the Sandanistas?
ted |
