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: Ilaine who wrote (49304)	10/4/2002 4:05:12 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's not like there were three choices - reactionary repression vs. progressive democracy vs. Communism. There were almost always only two - a repressive non-Communist government or a repressive Communist government. Well, this is obviously a lie, but let's just take you at your word: Batista OR Castro. Chiang OR Mao. Somoza OR the Sandinistas. The Communist Party line was that their bastards were better than our bastards, but history showed that to be vast, steaming piles of horse exhaust. Every place the Communists took over, and I mean EVERY place, they killed the progressives and those who wanted democracy, and instituted totalitarian autocracies. What about example #3? The Sandanistas brought elections to Nicaragua, just 5 years after ousting the dictator. Just 6 years after that, they stepped down peacefully after losing elections. Tom