What's the title going to be? "I Duh'd it My Way"?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nothing bit us in the ass in helping the Contras into power and the Sandinistas out. Sure, some of the usual antidemocratic pigs made the usual noises, but that's not a wound to us -- on the contrary, it's a sign we're wounding them. Fascisto-communist dickheads can compose speeches too.

Nicaragua has been a prospering, democratic state since the Sandinistas collapsed. With the Sandinistas running things, there wasn't a lot of prosperity to be found. Democracy advances, tyranny falls, collectivism dies, and that's the way I want it. I'm a libertarian. I care not a whit how many slavemongers die in the liberation. It seems to me when they're dead, they can't mount an organized opposition to a better way of life than they ever made.

Chavez will fall -- both because he will drive the Nicaraguan economy into the ground and because of his anti-American stance. He's anti-prosperity -- and we aren't. This is shown by his bottomless appetite for all the power for him, none for anyone else, and this is always a recipe for economic depression. This fall of the man on horseback isn't much of a wound to us, either.

You're quite losing this argument through not being enough of a disciple of liberty, you know.

The Sandinistas, the guys that Reagan broke the law to oust, returned to power in Nicaragua in 2007 and are "running things." Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) is president.....the FSLN holds the most seats in the National Assembly. And while they have initiated democratic reforms, particulalry regarding an independent judiciary, the model is Venezuela under Chavez, not the US.

From a US State Department report:

Since taking office again in January 2007, President Daniel Ortega has maintained the legal and regulatory underpinnings of the market-based economic model of his predecessors, but has rejected what he terms the "neo-liberal economic model," and along with it capitalism and the United States, which he refers to as the imperial power. Instead, he has allied himself with the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), whose other members include Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, and Venezuela. In 2008, Ortega declared that socialism was the only path for Nicaragua if the country wanted to alleviate poverty.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm

So you still justify Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra scheme? Tell that to the 11 Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes for their roles in the illegal foreign policy action.

How about GHW Bush's arming of Saddam to counter Reagan's arming of Iran...what a fuck up...arming both of our "enemies" in the region? What did that accomplish?

Why is the Bush/Iraq model of invade and occupy a better foreign policy approach than the Clinton/Bosnia model of tough diplomacy backed by a strong alliance of NATO forces?

No response to the fact that the US intel community, in NIE's for Bush, concluded that the invasion/occupation of Iraq and related torture of detainees from Afghanistan at Gitmo and black sites has resulted in a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment?

Where are the successes of your neocon policies?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Sandinistas, the guys that Reagan broke the law to oust, returned to power in Nicaragua in 2007 and are "running things." Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) is president.....the FSLN holds the most seats in the National Assembly. And while they have initiated democratic reforms, particulalry regarding an independent judiciary, the model is Venezuela under Chavez, not the US.

From a US State Department report:


So you still justify Reagan's illegal Iran/Contra scheme? Tell that to the 11 Reagan administration officials convicted of crimes for their roles in the illegal foreign policy action.

How about GHW Bush's arming of Saddam to counter Reagan's arming of Iran...what a fuck up...arming both of our "enemies" in the region? What did that accomplish?

Why is the Bush/Iraq model of invade and occupy a better foreign policy approach than the Clinton/Bosnia model of tough diplomacy backed by a strong alliance of NATO forces?

No response to the fact that the US intel community, in NIE's for Bush, concluded that the invasion/occupation of Iraq and related torture of detainees from Afghanistan at Gitmo and black sites has resulted in a "cause celebre" for terrorist recruitment?

Where are the successes of your neocon policies?

In places you haven't, or refused to, look, it would seem. Purblind is no way to go about anything. Heck, Wikipedia tells us how much of a lesson Ortega learned in his time out of power:

Ortega's policies became more moderate during his time in opposition, and he gradually reduced much of his former Marxist rhetoric in favor of an agenda of more moderate democratic socialism. His Roman Catholic faith has become more intense in recent years as well, leading Ortega to embrace a variety of socially conservative policies; in 2006 the FSLN endorsed a strict law banning all abortions in Nicaragua.

Did you notice any of that? Not that I'm at all keen on abortion bans, but I kept that in the quote as an example. (I reckon absolute control of whether we reproduce or not is better stewardship of the planet than any insistence by law on doing it otherwise.)

And we haven't had a lick of trouble out of Nicaragua, nor has Nicaragua had the kind of troubles that got us interested in the Contras in the first place. That's even with Ortega back in. He's acting like his ideas have changed in a more favorable direction, and that is surely what we want. That's no failure by any measure. It's an example of a bad-hat reforming.

Face it, Chavez's Venezuela is a pretend-democracy. The form may be there, but the function is not. Following such a model will not end well.

I never cease to justify the crushing of tyrants. Was not the Sandinista regime one of tyranny, impoverishment, and incompetence? The crushing of tyrants simply can't be wrong, and the liberation from oppression can't be wrong either. Always, I justify justify breaking bad laws (and laws shielding tyrants are never good laws, and you have (or you should) sufficient awareness to understand this too) to good ends. I've told you two or three times now that legislation was designed to keep Marxist monstrosities in office, their miseries the better to inflict. When will it sink in with you that it is bad to prevent liberation from oppression? I am not going to be impressed by your indignation because your priorities are both out of whack and strictly for partisan convenience. I will have nothing to do with either, being the good, thoughtful fellow I am.

The same goes for lunging into Iraq. It's expensive, yes, but what are their chances of going back to an avowedly capital-F Fascist government? I think they are small indeed. That's not a failure.

Afghanistan's a murkier case, because nobody there's willing to put up with being centrally governed anyway, given all their druthers. It's never really been a unified nation, however convenient it may be to call it by just one name. A lot of steep valleys, a lot of tribes, and the tribal level is where the loyalty pretty much entirely lies, and nothing seems to be generating an urge towards broader national consciousness or towards central governance either. A federated or a looser confederated model seems the natural one.

Let's see: before we invaded, Saddam ruled Iraq, funded terrorists and provided benefits for Israel-attackers' families, wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda as is evidenced by who was picking up the medical bills for al-Zarqawi's munched leg.

Now Saddam is dead, and his policies and alliances with him. Failure? I don't think so. Rulers who acted like Saddam have cleaned up their act, viz. Gaddafi. Was that a failure? I think that's an accomplishment. Funny how you can't.

Integration into the Functioning Global Economic Core continues. Our foreign policy troubles come from that part of the world that isn't integrated into globalization, which may conveniently be called the Non-Integrated Gap. We're fighting in the Gap right now. From time to time, we'll still be fighting here or there in the Gap region(s).

Why do you give half a fuck about "cause celèbre for terrorist recruitment" anyway? Could you tell if a terrorist was more annoyed with you just for being an American this year than a couple years ago? Haven't you noticed how difficult it is for the terrs to do anything anymore? Sure, they fight back. Just as sure, we shoot them -- and they've been stuck in the tribal territories of Pakistan, unable to reach out and touch us unless we're right there in their back yards, which is quite the contrast from the case at Sept. 11, 2001. Nasty people are going to hold nasty views of us, and because they're nasty, yeah, they're going to shoot at us too. Then we just smack their heads off their shoulders and the world gets a little better for having fewer bad actors in it. I have no problem with this, and will likely never understand why you think you should -- when you could just be happy more fascists died. Think how many Jews would have been saved if more fascists had died sooner. Think how many Jews would be saved now if all the Islamofascists were dead.

Which still leaves the great bulk of Islam around to practice their religion better, without these disgraces polluting it.

So no: spare no sympathy for the outraged feelings of bad actors, nor try to make nice to them. Their outrage is self-generated and it is unfair to us. They respond much better to the force of a 147-grain jacketed rifle slug through the cranium than to the force of a good example.