Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Aid for Nicaraguan Contras
Message-ID: <499@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 21:24:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ccivax.499
Posted: Wed Mar 19 21:24:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:29:56 EST
References: <170@psc70.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 73
Summary: Backing the wrong players?


In the local newspaper there was a large article (UPI?) describing "The
Players" in Nicaragua.  Among the many groups was a group of "Indians"
(indiginous population) which has been recieving little (if any) aid
from the U.S., has strongholds within very short distance of many
strategic targets (Atlantic harbor, major cities,...), and has some
very good reasons to fight (they have been "relocated" several times
until they started "fighting back").

Yet, according to the article most of the aid goes to the Samosa
"National Guard", who have terrible strategic positions, little support
from the local population, and little popular support here in the
states.  Why?

On theory is that the "Indians" are not fighting for the "complete
overthrow" of the government, but only a truly democratic system in
which opposition parties play a significant role.  A two party system
if you wish.  The Ex-Samosa group want the "Old-Style" democracy.  Many
of the "Contra" leaders are the same ones who put Sandino to death in
the first place, and they are the ones saying that Sandino would like
their "democracy" much better than the Sandinista version.

How many "One party" democracies do we support.  Sure, we let
opposition candidates run in El Salvadore.  We even "let" Aquino run in
the Phillipines.  Of course, never mind that "Our" party got access to
press and media that reached 90% of the population and the opposition
got access to "propaganda sheets" that combined, reached only 10%.

Suppose at the 1986 election, when you went to vote, an armed "guard"
looked at your party registration and pointed you to the "Democrat"
booth, and when you voted (paper ballot) you discovered that the pen
you were writing your votes was an eraser-mate pen.  You notice on the
way out, that the Republicans and independents are using an electronic
voting machine.  Now, suppose you observed that all "lower class"
people were also being sent to the "Democrat" booth.  Finally, when the
vote comes in, you discover that the ballot for your precinct reports
500/1 Republican.  You watched several democrats go in, but appearantly
they all voted Republican.

Suppose that later that week, Democrat campaign workers were being
taken downtown "for questioning".  Several seem to have developed drug
habits over the week (that's what they are being held for).  Others
forgot to pay traffic tickets.  Others seem to be having trouble with
tax audits.  Many seem to have been caught in this round of "Lay-Offs"
even though the company seems to be making a tidy profit.  A few have
been fired because of a "bad attitude" (ask your personnel director
what the effect of a "bad attitude" referrence is).

In the next few months, you find Republican campaign workers are
getting promotions in their private sector jobs.  Your new boss is a
staunch Republican.  So is his boss.

Now, here come the 1987 primaries, the Democrats ask you to be a
campaign worker.  Do you really want to risk it?

Your boss, the Republican, invites you to the next "Elect Robert Dole"
(the most right wing candidate I can think of off hand) rally.  Do you
really want to turn him down?  While you're there, the Department head
invites you to be a Dole campaign worker.  Would you turn him down,
especially after he's just spent 5 minutes talking about how you
*might* have a "bright future ahead of you"?

If you thought Nixon's "dirty tricks" weren't cricket, take a look at
the "back pages" of the newspapers during the next "Democratic
Election".  Simply review the last 3-6 months of the Phillipine
elections.

If you think this sounds too far fetched to happen HERE, notice the
little chart on page 4 of NewsWeek (Feb 24, 1986) which indicates that
"Knowing the Right People" is considered "What it takes to succeed"
by 58% of those in government, 31% of those in business, and 32% of those
in labor.  Also interesting, only 8% of those in business considered
"Courage to stand up for beliefs" an asset.