Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtuxn!gdf From: gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The Sandinista Problem II: The Home Front Message-ID: <726@mtuxn.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 15:35:44 EST Article-I.D.: mtuxn.726 Posted: Wed Mar 12 15:35:44 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:01:57 EST References: <141@hhb.UUCP> <721@mtuxn.UUCP>, <1032@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ Lines: 145 > 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 Ferraiolo > = Tim Sevener >> >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. I've been told that there are no Communists in the world, only dedicated Socialists working towards Communism. So I use the term Communist to describe orthodox Marxist-Leninists. That does seem to describe the Sandinistas. As for the other political groups currently involved with the Sandinista dominated government, they are about as important as the other 'non-Communist' groups that formed part of the NLF in Vietnam. I hope everyone remembers how the NLF was going to govern the South, how it wasn't Communist controlled, and how it was really a broad front of various groups opposing 'imperialism'. Too bad all those statements were false. I _predict_ that if the Sandinistas remain in control of Nicaragua, the other groups will eventually be forced out just like in Vietnam. For a view of how this works (written by someone not favorable to the US) read 'A VietCong Memoir'. I'll dig up the author's name if necessary. It was published last year. > 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. Sorry, _by definition_ Communism rejects what we think of as democracy. M-Lism requires the existence of a 'vanguard' of revolutionaries who are not bound by democratic controls. This is exactly what is wrong with Communism. Of course, a Communist organization can participate in democratic government, just like the National Socialists did. That didn't make the Nazis democratic and it doesn't make Communists democratic. Try reading "On Utopian and Scientific Socialism" by Lenin. >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. I claim that _very_ few people in the US are afraid of government punishment for speaking up. Certainly Senator Kassenbaum has a right to criticise the Administration. I don't think she is _afraid_ to speak up. Certainly she hasn't been silenced. Just because some people don't like what the Administration is saying, doesn't mean that the Administration is frightening people into silence. Provide some examples of people being silenced (as opposed to speaking out) and I might believe you. > 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?) Good question. Of course on a metaphysical level, it's tough to say. Maybe Britain _shouldn't_ have opposed the Nazis in, say, 1933. Maybe by letting the National Socialists alone until forced into war in 1939, Britain gained some advantage. It is possible, and there isn't any scientific or logical way to prove it one way or the other. Perhaps we can use "common sense" to decide what is meant by "helpful to x". It seems clear that giving weapons to the contras is harmful to the Sandinistas. It also seems that _not_ giving arms to the contras at least relieves the Sandinistas of some problems. Therefore, not giving arms to the contras is helpful to the Sandinistas. If that's not clear, let's try another tack. Ask this question: Would the Sandinistas prefer to have the US continue with current policy? OR Would they prefer the US to provide the arms that the Reagan Adminstration wants to provide? Is there any question that the Sandinistas would prefer the US not to increase arms aid to the opposition forces? Isn't that a reasonable definition of 'helpful' versus 'not helpful'. I'm sorry to beat this issue to death, but if it's not obvious to you, then I'll try to make it so. Incidentally, only such an educated group of people as this could for a moment doubt that giving arms to the opposition in Nicaragua is 'harmful' to the Communists and that, conversely, not giving arms aid is 'helpful'. Clear enough? > 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. The conflict in Nicaragua is not significantly different from most other wars. People caught in the middle suffer. If you are a total pacifist, that's your privilege, after all, it's a free country. Of course, the Sandinistas never commit any of the crimes you ascribe to the "contras", do they? And just because Nicaragua is a member of the OAS, so what? The Sandinistas broke their promises to the OAS, which they made in order to get the OAS to go along with the anti-Somoza revolution. Both sides in Nicaragua are very similar and I find it hard to believe that the contras are totally evil. One final thought on this point; it is easier to control a well financed force than a poorly financed one. >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....) Yes, I can Tim. Drunk driving isn't backed by the largest country in the world. Also, I don't propose _killing_ all Communists. All I propose is giving arms to people who don't want the Communists to kill or enslave them. If you want to propose an alternative way of 'not helping' the Communists, feel free. But it should be something that the Sandinistas would prefer no more than what the Reagan Administration proposes. Otherwise _some_ people might think you really don't want to 'not help' the Sandinistas. > "Peace in the World, > or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb "Give me liberty or give me death" Guy