Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: A Pleasant Precedent Message-ID: <117200150@inmet> Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 17:05:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117200150 Posted: Tue Sep 23 17:05:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:17:27 EDT References: <1143@cybvax0.UUCP> Lines: 85 Nf-ID: #R:cybvax0.UUCP:-114300:inmet:117200150:000:3509 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Sep 23 17:05:00 1986 > :[brkirby@watdragon.UUCP ] >> :[Brian Mahoney - apparently (so quoted)] >>There are many problems with Reagan's policies I will agree. I do >>not see a problem with consistency though. If a government is >>pro-US it will get support. If it is not Pro-US then there will >>be major problems with relations. Well, they seem to be moving in that direction, but it is not a consistent pattern. E.g., there has been massive aid for Ethiopia, which is extremely anti-U.S. And anti-U.S. rhetoric has been a staple of "non- aligned" meetings, most of whose participants are recipients of U.S. aid. The Mugabe incident is an *innovation*. >This is the problem that the US has in the world. They give aid >to countries based on the opinions of their governments, not on >whether aid is needed. On the contrary, U.S. aid has been *less* dependent on the recipient's "opinions" (a government's "opinions" are *policy*) than that of other world powers. It is only *now* becoming more realistic - and the "problem in the world" is old. The new ap- proach is likely to *alleviate* the problem, for the reasons I mentioned. Besides, no one likes a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Honest self-interest, combined with understanding for the interests of others, gets one more respect. "To each one according to his need" wouldn't be a wise policy even for a world government, and the U.S. isn't one. >In Nicaragua, the people suffer from shortages and terrorists >because the Sandinistas are not "Pro-US", even though they are much more >humane than Somoza. Why? >----------------------- > Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. Just about the worst... Why? The people there are suffering because the Sandinistas are abysmally *worse* than Somoza's corrupt but relatively mild rule. The shortages are government-created. A forcible reorganization and regulation of the farmers made them miserable, and production plunged; regulated distribution made shortages worse; and they have been used throughout as a tool of control. Ten new political prisons have been added by the "much more humane" Sandinistas to Somoza's *one*. Condidtions in prisons are much worse. Somoza repressed the Indians, too - but under Sandinistas, this rose to genocidal proportions. La Prensa - tolerated throughout the Somozas rule - has been gagged, then closed. Foreign press is unavailable, too. Universal surveillance through Cuban-imported block committees has become the way of life. It was unheard of under Somoza. Universal, cradle-to-grave indoctrination has become the way of life. Official "unions" have been organized, and free unions repressed. The church (critical of Somoza and very popular) is now persecuted. The whole Jewish community fled. The country has been completely militarized - Somoza's army was small. The hateful draft was imposed - often drafting 13-year-old kids. Police numbers have soared. The army and much of the national life is under *foreign control* now. The Cubans and other "internationalists" are everywhere and are everywhere hated. There was nothing like that under Somoza. The list could be continued; anyway, Somoza's kleptocracy was *paradise* compared to the present odious regime. Blaming shortages on the resistance is a piece of that regime's propaganda; it is based on nothing; the shortages preceded the rise of the resistance and contributed to it. Jan Wasilewsky