SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Sun Tzu who wrote (153927)12/13/2004 9:13:21 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 281500
 
Civil wars tend to be nmessy but most of that post is bunk'em....



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (153927)12/14/2004 12:22:46 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
....How was the individual Nicaraguan affected in this long period? They definitely gained some basic rights that had been deprived of them during the Somoza years. Moreover, they gained some say in government matters as well as in the workplace, where they now supposedly ruled. But most Nicaraguans were overwhelmingly poor, and too uneducated to enjoy these new rights. In Nicaragua during the Somoza years, the bourgeoisie had risen and turned into a new, unassailable, indomitable aristocracy. This new aristocracy had all but blatantly exploited the people, and Sandinista rule was a great improvement from this. Otherwise, conditions for Nicaraguans barely changed—the previous enemies became leaders, the previous leaders became enemies, and they could care less whether they were ruled by one or ruled by several.

The Sandinista regime was, day by day, losing the revolutionary ideals they had fought for. In 1986, they closed a popular Nicaraguan newspaper, La Prensa, because of “subversive activities” and anti-Sandinista literature. This caused a massive uproar that only exacerbated the already present conflict. What was different between this and Somoza’s censorship and other conservative activities? Was the classic summation of communism, as detailed in Orwell’s Animal Farm, coming true? Were the Sandinistas, in their glory and triumph, picking up traits characteristic of the previous dictatorial regime, and indeed of any ruling, vanguard party?

Political oppression, freedom violations, oligarchy--these are all things that the Somoza regime represented, and sadly enough, the Sandinistas inherited. The left-wing turned out to be not much of an improvement from the right-wing, as has been the case in history. Despite this, though, there is a rather happy ending to the story of the Nicaraguan people. In 1990, Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua, decided to hold free elections within Nicaragua. This controversial decision occurred for several reasons. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union had left Nicaragua seemingly without allies. International pressure was mounting, and many countries were imposing heavy economic sanctions on Nicaragua. Second, the contra war, going on for more than a decade, was getting unbearable to Nicaraguans, who wanted nothing but peace, and a chance to succeed in global markets. For these reasons Ortega gave the presidency up to elections—a noble act that put him in front of the race for president. He lost though, barely, to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, previously of the junta, who had split off and formed the political party National Union of Opposition (UNO). Chamorro became president, and was immediately faced with an endless amount of conflicts to resolve.

Chamorro now had to deal with all of the Sandinista’s errata. The contras, appeased by free elections, had ceased fighting and even put forth a candidate for the presidency. With the return of peace, Chamorro was faced with a new problem. The landlords whom the Sandinistas had confiscated he land from were now returning to reclaim their land. The peasants who had lived on the land in collectives ever since the early 1980’s, naturally refused to leave. This conflict, and other similar Sandinista-induced conflicts were filling Chamorro’s domestic platter. But now there was peace—and there was democracy.

Though the Sandinista Revolution is behind us, the role of the Sandinistas in history is still an enigma, and many questions still remain. Why had the Sandinista’s democratic ideals taken so long to be implemented? The Sandinistas seemed to have democratized themselves a rather long time after they democratized their nation. They had great intentions, but were their plans ever instated? Is the failing of idealistic revolutionaries inevitable? What is the significance of the failed Sandinista economic model? The Sandinistas’ exact long-term contribution to history is as yet unknown. One thing that historians agree upon is that the Sandinistas’ unique case should be subject to intense scrutiny, so that we may better understand history, politics, and humanity.

jorian.com



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (153927)12/14/2004 12:29:55 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
Oscar Manuel Sobalvarro, also known as "Comandante Ruben," joined the resistance to the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua shortly after the Sandinistas came to power. He eventually became chief of staff of the Contra army. This interview, which was conducted for COLD WAR in October 1997, has been translated from Spanish.

On why he opposed the Sandinistas:

It was the repression carried out by the Sandinistas which forced me to take the decision to fight, in particular because we saw that Nicaragua's democracy was under threat. The Sandinistas promised democracy, but what we began to see a few months after their triumph was very different. ...

My father is a peasant; his name is Justo Pastor Sobalvarro. He is a man of few means, hardworking, who serves his community. He used to grow coffee in the province of Jinotega, but his property was confiscated by the Sandinista regime. ...

My father, who was a liberal, said to me: "I think that these people are communists." That's what Somoza used to say in his speeches, and my father -- though he didn't support Somoza and was a great liberal -- believed it. And being the age I was at the time -- I was 19, very young -- listening to my father say that everyday influenced me, and I started thinking that yes, the Sandinistas were communists. And when they began to give signs that they were, I believed it, and that's what made me decide to fight against them, even though the idea of joining the military and taking up arms to fight against someone hadn't crossed my mind.

At the beginning of their government, the Sandinista Front promoted a literacy campaign, and this program included first and foremost the education of adults in the rural areas. And they sent student brigades to the mountains. These brigades included foreigners who were appointed coordinators of the groups. One of these coordinators came to our house, and this person turned out to be a Soviet, and in his speech he said that God didn't exist, that God was Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve Fidel Castro; that the government of Nicaragua was at the disposal of Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve the government, and all this kind of thing -- which we the Nicaraguans weren't used to, because we've been very Catholic, especially my family. And I would say the Nicaraguans in general are very Catholic. And for someone to suddenly turn up and tell us that God doesn't exist really started putting a lot of doubts in our minds. ...

There was a lot of hatred. Personally speaking, I was first and foremost affected physically by the Sandinista Front, because we were taken out of our homes and our families and threatened with being shot, and at that moment I began to build up a tremendous hatred against the Front's structures, and I felt the desire to fight against these people because they were doing a lot of damage. Just as they hurt me and my family personally, we also saw how they hurt other people, and we really had the desire and the morale to fight. ...

[We didn't like the] systems which the Sandinista government implanted in Nicaragua, such as the control of private property, the political persecution of all those who didn't identify with the Sandinista regime, who didn't say "I'm a Sandinista." All this forced many Nicaraguans to fight against the Sandinistas, because, first of all, we weren't prepared to give up what was ours, our property. The Sandinistas came and confiscated our properties. All those who didn't agree with the Sandinista policies were subjected to confiscations and imprisonment, and their lives were threatened. Many were murdered just for disagreeing with the Sandinista Front. This sort of thing turned many Nicaraguan peasants against the Sandinistas and made them decide to fight [against them] militarily. ...

On joining the Contras:

I started [fighting] on March 20, 1980, with hunting rifles. My purpose in fighting the Sandinista Front at that time was not to wage war against them but to convey to the Sandinista government the message that the peasants and many other Nicaraguans did not agree with [the introduction of] new things which were alien to the way of life that we knew, and that if what they were trying to do was to implant a totalitarian communist regime, well, we weren't going to agree to that. And that's how we began the struggle. Initially we were a group of 15 young men, and then it grew to 30, and I was one of the leaders and main promoters of the group. That's how the Contras were born: what were known as the MILPAS: Milicias Populares Anti-Sandinistas [Anti-Sandinista People's Militias].

As part of the struggle against the Sandinista regime, we started laying ambushes; and it was during one of these ambushes that we retrieved two Soviet rifles. And it then became necessary to show the world that the Sandinistas really were being supported and supplied by the Soviet Union and Cuba. The best way of showing it was to present the Soviet-made weapons to the public, so after we retrieved these weapons I decided to go to Honduras to ask for support to present the weapons. After some time, we managed to make contact with Commander Enrique Bermudez, known as "Commander 380," and through him we showed the weapons to the U.S. government authorities who were in Honduras, and they were persuaded that the Sandinistas were indeed being supported and supplied by the Soviet countries. ...

This, of course, was in 1981, almost a year after the struggle began. Initially, we had used pistols and hunting rifles, but by now we had war weapons which we had captured, and their number was gradually increasing.

On U.S. support for the Contras:

It was through some contacts with the U.S. government that we started to receive help -- first of all through Argentine instructors, who trained us, and then the Americans became directly involved in giving us help. There were difficult moments, times when we were getting help, and then the U.S. Congress cut off the aid, so we had to renew the struggle to seek help. Some of our people who represented the political side of the resistance lobbied the U.S. Congress to try to get help to continue the war against the Sandinistas. However, we were always fighting against the Sandinistas, even without help from the U.S. government. ...

I think that the support we received from the U.S. government wasn't aimed at us achieving a military victory in Nicaragua. I think we received help to pressurize the Sandinista government into making changes. And it was not just the pressure that we exerted as guerrillas, but there were also the interests of the neighboring countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Honduras, who through the Esquipulas II agreement managed to get the Sandinistas to commit themselves to a process of democratization. And after these agreements, we became involved in negotiations with the Sandinistas. I also think that the Sandinistas were forced to negotiate not only because of the pressure exerted by the Central American countries, but because of the military pressure we exerted on them; because we were on top of them, gaining terrain every day, and they were unable to stop the guerrilla movement in Nicaragua through military force. So it was a combination of those two factors, and of course the [Sandinista] Front made mistakes -- the Front made many more mistakes than we did as a resistance movement.

On Nicaragua's role in the Cold War:

There was a war going on in Nicaragua, there was a war going on in El Salvador, there was guerrilla warfare in Guatemala, there were small movements in Honduras -- so naturally the big powers had a political interest in these events. We, as armed guerrilla groups, were an important factor in these big powers achieving their aims. ...

The interests of the Soviet countries were to spread the guerrilla movements throughout Latin America, and so of course we were protecting, let's say, the interests of the Americans by preventing these subversive movements from going any further. And I think that we, the Nicaraguans, were a very important factor in preventing the guerrilla movement in El Salvador from consolidating itself and taking power ... mainly because their strength depended on the support they received from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and since we were confronting the Sandinistas directly, the Sandinistas didn't have time to help the Salvadoran guerrillas, as well as other guerrillas in Guatemala and so on. So in this sense we were an important factor, and this was shown by the fact that when the resistance was dismantled, the Salvadoran guerrilla movement had to be dismantled too because they no longer had any base from which to continue fighting. ... And I think that at that very moment, the United States also achieved their aim of forestalling the emergence of any more guerrilla movements.

cnn.com



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (153927)12/14/2004 12:39:00 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
A nice view of the Leftist take on the period. Of course, there are other p.o.v.'s on the matter.....



To: Sun Tzu who wrote (153927)12/14/2004 4:36:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
ARE WE PROUD OF THE TYPE OF DEMOCRACY WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY...? WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE ARE WE SETTING FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD WHEN MANY OF OUR CITIZENS ARE LOSING CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR VOTING SYSTEM....? DID MR. BUSH REALLY WIN THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER...?

______________________________

Startling New Revelations Highlight Rare Congressional Hearings on Ohio Vote

by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman

Published on Monday, December 13, 2004 by The Free Press (Columbus, Ohio)

commondreams.org


Startling new revelations about Ohio's presidential vote have been uncovered as Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee join Rev. Jesse Jackson in Columbus, the state capital, on Monday, Dec. 13, to hold a rare field hearing into election malfeasance and manipulation in the 2004 vote. The Congressional delegation will include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, and others.

Taken together, the revelations show Republicans – in state and county government, and in the Ohio Republican Party – were determined to undermine and suppress Democratic turnout by a wide variety of methods.

The revelations were included in affidavits gathered for an election challenge lawsuit filed Monday at the Ohio Supreme Court. Ohio's Republican Electoral College representatives are also to meet at noon, Monday, at the State House, even though the presidential recount, requested by the Green and Libertarian Parties, is only beginning the same day.

On Sunday, John Kerry spoke with Rev. Jesse Jackson and urged him to take an more active role in investigating the irregularities and ensuring a fair and impartial recount. Kerry said there were three areas of inquiry that should be addressed: 92,000 ballots that recorded no vote for president; qualifying and counting provisional ballots; and supported an independent analysis of the software and set-up of the optical scan voting machines.

What follows are excerpts from some of the affidavits for the election challenge.

* In Warren County, where election officers declared a homeland security emergency on Election Day, and barred reporters and others from watching the vote count, it now has been revealed that county employees were told the previous Thursday they should prepare for the Election Day lockdown. That disclosure suggests the lockdown was a political decision, not a true security risk. Moreover, statements also describe how ballots were left unguarded and unprotected in a warehouse on Election Day, and they were hastily moved after county officials received complaints.

* In Franklin County, where Columbus is located, the election director, Matt Damschroder, misinformed a federal court on Election Day when he testified the county had no additional voting machines – in response to a Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought by the state Democratic Party that minority precincts were intentionally deprived of machines. It now appears as many as 81 voting machines were being held back, out of 2,866 available, according to recent statements by Damschroder and Bill Anthony, the chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections. The shortage of machines in Democratic-leaning districts lead to long lines and thousands of people leaving in frustration and not voting. Damschroder's contradictory statements raise the possibility of perjury.

* Also in Franklin County, a worker at the Holiday Inn observed a team of 25 people who called themselves the "Texas Strike Force" using payphones to make intimidating calls to likely voters, targeting people recently in the prison system. The "Texas Strike Force" members paid their way to Ohio, but their hotel accommodations were paid for by the Ohio Republican Party, whose headquarters is across the street. The hotel worker heard one caller threaten a likely voter with being reported to the FBI and returning to jail if he voted. Another hotel worker called the police, who came but did nothing.

* In Knox County, students at Kenyon College, a liberal arts school, stood in line for up to 11 hours, because only one voting machine was in use. However, at nearby Mt. Vernon Nazarene University, there were ample voting machines and no lines. This suggests the GOP shorting of voting machines was a more widespread tactic than just targeting inner-city neighborhoods.

* Reports in sworn affadavits affirm numerous instances of direct official interference with the right to vote. In Warren County, Democrats were being targeted and forced to use provisional ballots, even if they had proper identification. These ballots were then subjected to more rigorous standards to be counted than were other ballots. In a half-dozen precincts in Franklin County, people who were not inside polling places by 7:30 PM were told to leave - even if they had waited in line for hours. This is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Sworn affidavits also confirmed reports of old voter rolls being used, meaning that new voters were not on the list and would be given provisional ballots, if allowed to vote at all.

Affidavits were also filed in support of the election challenge suit raising questions about manipulating exit poll results and computer tabulation of county and statewide votes.

In one exit poll affidavit, Jonathan David Simon, an expert witness, notes that at 12:53 a.m. the exit polls altered the projected winner – even though the same number of votes had been cast. "Although each update reports the same number of respondents (872), the reported results differ significantly, with the latter (12:53 a.m.) exit poll results apparently having been brought into congruence with the tabulated vote results." In other words, the exit polls were made to conform to a political decision to declare Bush the victor.

Another exit poll affidavit, filed by Ron Paul Baiman, an economist and statistician at the University of Illinois and University of Chicago, said the swing in national exit poll results, recorded at 12:33 a.m., when Kerry was winning with 50.8 percent of the vote, to Bush winning with 51.2 percent, was, "in lay terms, impossible."

"This is more than a 100 percent swing in the other direction of the exit poll margin, he said. "There is less than a one in 25,000,000 (1/25,507,308) chance of this occurring."

Another affidavit by Richard Hayes Phillips, a geomorphology Ph.D. from University of Oregon with a special expertise in spotting anomalous data, found dramatic examples of erroneous voting patterns – with votes taken away from Kerry - that can only be explained by computer manipulation.

For instance, in 16 precincts in Cleveland, he found votes that were shifted from Kerry to other candidates. In at least 30 precincts, there was ultra-low voter turnout reported – as low as 7.1 percent or 13.05 percent – and seven entire wards where total turnout was below 50 percent. He writes, "Kerry won Cleveland with 83.27 percent of the vote to 15.88 percent for Bush. If voter turnout were really 60 percent of registered voters, as seems likely based on turnout in other major cities of Ohio, rather than 49.89 percent as reported, Kerry's margin of victory in Cleveland has been wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes."

Phillips points to other counties where has says "there is compelling evidence of fraud." In Miami County early on election night, when 31,620 votes had been counted, and later, when 50,235 votes were counted, "Kerry had exactly the same percentage, 33.92 percent, and the percentage for George Bush was almost exactly the same, dropping by 0.03 percent from 65.80 to 65.77 percent. The second set of returns gave Bush a margin of exactly 16,000 votes, giving cause to question the integrity of the central counting device for the optical scan machines. "

He cites many other examples, but summarizes his findings: "It is my professional opinion that John Kerry's margins of victory were wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes in Cleveland, by 17,000 votes in Columbus, and by as many as 7,000 votes in Toledo. It is my further professional opinion that John Kerry's margins of defeat in Warren, Butler, and Clermont Counties were inflated by as many as 37,000 votes in the aggregate, and in Miami County by as many as 6,000 votes. There are still 92,672 uncounted regular ballots that, based upon the analysis set forth of the election results from Dayton and Cincinnati, may be expected to break for John Kerry by an overwhelming margin. And there are still 14,441 uncounted provisional ballots."

_________________________

Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of OHIO'S STOLEN ELECTION: VOICES OF THE DISENFRANCHISED, 2004, upcoming from www.freepress.org