Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1649)	9/28/2001 8:02:53 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>It might behoove you to remember, also, that we have sheltered, trained, and supported terrorists ourselves, when it suited our purposes to do so. When Osama was blowing up Russians, he was our good buddy. He wasn't blowing up too many civilians, but that was only because he didn't have the means to do so; if the Mujahedin had started staging raids in Moscow, do you think we would have withdrawn our support? Do you perhaps remember the Contras? They spent a good deal of time and energy attacking civilians, with the full approval of Mr. Wolfowitz, Ms. Kirkpatrick, etc. We waged a terrorist campaign against the Sandinistas, by proxy, and we thought that a good thing, because it served our purposes. Many died, I suspect rather more than 6000, but hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, and we couldn't have another Commie state in our hemisphere.<< Hi Steven- Excellent post, as usual, but I'd like some clarification of the part I selected above. There is a hint, and perhaps I am being hypersensitive, that it was/is US policy, covert, unspoken, or otherwise, to support and train people who commit unspeakable acts with the intention that these people would commit these unspeakable acts. In other words, we did not just arm the Contras, we suggested that they kill civilians. We did not just arm bin Laden, we suggested that he commit terrorism. Maybe you didn't mean that but I've read it enough lately and I'd like to understand why it is said. Is it true? Or is it just projection?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1649)	9/28/2001 2:01:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven... I find myself largely in agreement with your comments.. We did stand by in Ruwanda, as did Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.... And that's simply because no one possessed specific interests in the region. It was only after public outrage flared, fired by CNN coverage, that the US stepped in after the fact. It's tough to be the world's "policeman", because most of the time when a cop sticks his nose into your business, you want to tell him to buzz off despite the fact that he'll put the habeus grabbus on you, if you do. But boy o' boy... when the neighbor's gone on a rampage and is shooting everyone in sight, the first thing you're doing is calling 911 and screaming at the operator about why there aren't any cops around to stop it. Also, to claim the contras were strictly targeting civilians is RIDICULOUS. They were fighting the Sandinista military primarily along the Honduras-Nicaragua border, and not in Managua, where 25% of the people live. maps.com And furthermore, the revolution against Somoza was primarily one of the middle class rising up against his economic repression, where his business interests always enjoyed an economic advantage over theirs... The Sandinistas were a relatively small force who rode to political success upon this grass-roots effort to throw out Somoza... And when they had control over the government, the middle class businessmen found themselves in an even worse situation as their assets were nationalized or confiscated by Ortega's Marxists and "liberation theologists", and their every action monitored by Tomas Borge's "neighborhood watch" committees who spied on everyone. And that's why, AFTER the Sandinista's came to power, literally the largest percentage of the Nicaraguan middle class fled the country... So if you're going to mention attrocities by the Contras, if would be nice if you compare them to the massive betrayal and oppression of the very middle class who brought them to power in the first place. Bottom line is you're never going to find any group that's not going to consist of its riff-raff and criminal elements. Because face it... if you had any money you could salvage, you fled to the US and tried to start your life again. The ones left behind were the peasants and former soldiers, and those who had nowhere else to go, but were not going to live under marxism.. You'll always have them in any organization and crimes will always be committed from time to time. But the overthrow of the repressive Sandinista regime, one FAR MORE REPRESSIVE THAN SOMOZA, was worthwhile. And if you doubt it, try asking the Nicaraguans who, after pressure from the Contras and loss of aid from Cuba and the USSR, were forced to submit to elections and were promptly voted out. Hawkmoon