Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The Sandinista Problem II:  The Home Front
Message-ID: <1032@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 09:02:17 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.1032
Posted: Tue Mar 11 09:02:17 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 05:26:49 EST
References: <141@hhb.UUCP> <721@mtuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 55


 
   Guy Ferraioli really got upset at the luscious satire posted
   on Reagan's Central American War.  Of course some of his
   points may make no sense but ....
   
   > > Bob B_Field         >Guy Ferraioli
> >miracles on laymen and Congressmen.  We successfully labeled the Sandinistas
> >as "communists" who threaten our National Security.  This priceless
> >technique renders them evil.  It justifies military action.  Those who
> 
> The Saninistas aren't Communists?  Communists aren't evil?  I see.
> 
 
Is the government of Nicaragua "communist"?  The media seems totally unwilling
to confront this question but the answer is an unequivocal no.  As has
been pointed out before 35% of the Nicaraguan Assembly elected to office
in the election of 1984 (an election, please note) are from opposition
parties and not even Sandinistas.  Besides these official organizations
who are not Sandinistas whatsoever, the Sandinistas themselves include
various factions from priests to former guerrilas some of whom are
Communists and some who are not.  Nor does the label "communist"
necessarily mean "undemocratic".  This was demonstrated when Communists
participated in the government of France after being elected as part of
the Socialist-Communist coalition.
 
On to red-baiting:  (one notes the former point is *never* made in the media)

> >speak favorably of the Sandinistas are automatically either dupes or
> >communists.  People who know things that we don't want said are wary of
> >speaking up for fear of being fingered.  The inescapable logic of red
> 
> Are you kidding?  Who in _this_ country is afraid of speaking up?  This
> just isn't what is happening. Some people (like Reagan) have the 
> almightly nerve to say that if you espouse policies that help the
> Communists, hey, you ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS.  Like,
> ah, wow man, like A = A.  How astonishing.  Of course, this is fascism. 
 
Well, for one, Republican Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, was
upset enough about Reagan's red-baiting tactics that she gave a
speech deploring such tactics.  Secondly, it is one thing to 
"ESPOUSE POLICIES THAT HELP THE COMMUNISTS" (note previous comment
about whether Nicaragua is "communist" and what the hell does that mean
anyway?) and another thing to ESPOUSE POLICIES OF WANTON TERROR,
VIOLENCE, MURDER, RAPE, AND DESTRUCTION against the innocent civilians
of a fellow member of the Organization of American States.
Let us consider an analogy to this reasoning:
"IF you do NOT support lining up all martini-drinkers against the wall
and having them shot then you are ESPOUSING POLICIES THAT PROMOTE
DRUG ABUSE."  Can you see the difference there, Guy?
(I *hope* you do not see executing martini-drinkers as good....)

     "Peace in the World,
             or the World in Pieces!"
      tim sevener   whuxn!orb