You are also skipping over two other very important chapters, those two "little doctrines" called the Truman Doctrine, and the Monroe Doctrine in particular, which I think you are purposely failing to mention, which disallowed a communist Soviet intrusion into our hemisphere, (e.g.; the Monroe Doctrine) and just as important, the Truman Doctrine was to limit the spread of communism globally, a "tit for tat" approach. It wasn't Nicaragua's "time nor place" to become communist.
I hardly forget that the US feels it is "ordained by God" to tell every sovereign nation in the western hemisphere what is best for them. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, you forgot a couple of chapters. > > First, I would hardly call the Sandanistas "Democratically elected". > Ortega and the Sandanistas seized power shortly after they assassinated > Anastasio Somoza. > > Second, when Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980, he made no bones of > his intent to kick Ortega's and the Sandanista's ass. The American public, > (me included) wanted nothing less than to see these brutal assholes deposed > from Nicaragua. Reagan made no bones, and was very public in his dislike for > the Sandanistas, and in particular Manuel Ortega. These folks were brutal > murderers, not to mention that they were communists, with an intent to > spread their version of communism throughout the region. > > As far as the elections that you reference, there were numerous "Observers" > at the time, (I believe it was in 1984) who said that the elections were > anything but fair....Moreover, it was nothing less than the kind of > elections we are seeing today in Venezuala with Hugo Chavez.... Hardly, > "Fair". > > You are also skipping over two other very important chapters, those two > "little doctrines" called the Truman Doctrine, and the Monroe Doctrine in > particular, which I think you are purposely failing to mention, which > disallowed a communist Soviet intrusion into our hemisphere, (e.g.; the > Monroe Doctrine) and just as important, the Truman Doctrine was to limit the > spread of communism globally, a "tit for tat" approach. It wasn't > Nicaragua's "time nor place" to become communist. > > The Reagan Administration, (just like the Carter Administration, and later, > the Clinton and Bush Administrations) discounted the Hague's determination > specifically with regard to the ICJ's ruling regarding the mining of Sandino > Harbor Nicaragua. From "Inside the Issues": > > ============ > In Jan. 1984, mines were laid in Sandino harbor in Nicaragua, accompanied by > other mine-layings, sabotage of Sandanista communications, and destruction > of an arms depot. In April, it was disclosed that the CIA had conducted the > action, and a Senate resolution condemned the mining 84-12. > > The mines were designed primarily to damage and scare off ships rather than > destroy them, but they were a clear violation of international law. The > Sandanistas took their case to the International Court of Justice in the > Hague (popularly known as the World Court) and won, though the > administration refused in advance to recognize the court’s jurisdiction. The > mining of the harbors was an example of “force against another state,” the > court said; US support of the contras “amounts to an intervention of one > state in he internal affairs of the other.” > > By 1984 the contras had become an end in themselves. Loyalty to the contras > had become the litmus test for loyalty to “Reagan’s policy” among > conservatives. > > http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Foreign_Policy.htm > > ============ > > More importantly, Fred L. Morrison, an attorney who specializes in > international law penned a scholarly Opinion regarding the Reagan > Administration's decision to forego participation in the "merits" of the > Sandinista's claim before the Hague, captioned, "Legal Issues in The > Nicaragua Opinion" in 1987. It is a very short read, and I encourage you to > take a gander: > > http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html > > With regard to the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan's participation, I lived > during the era, I know what the Soviets were capable of, (being stationed in > Western Europe in the 1970s) and I know what it is that Ronald Reagan did > to (as you said, and I quote) "cash/credit to support a failed government > andcommunications/transport system due to unbridled military spending since > the 50's and the absolute devastation of citizen confidence over > Afghanistan"......Two words, two syllables: > > > "Star Wars" > > These two little words had Gorby and the Soviet Hierarchy digging in their > Soviet Comrade's piggy banks to muster up all of the military might that > they could in order for detente......Ronnie was having none of it. > > Today, we have a very far left extremist group of folks that would attempt > to rewrite history as to the role that President Reagan played in the > ending of the Cold War. Most of which, is total revisionist, far left > radical reactionary horse hockey!! > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For military engagements I cite the Iran-Contra (as in Nicaragua and the >> CIAs Mr Felix Rodriguez who I met there) there were others but one should >> suffice. Over 100, 000 killed trying to depose a Democratically elected (67% >> Internationally supervised, NO irregularities found) government. >> >> The suit was brought to the ICJ by Nicaragua. The US was a member and one >> of the sitting judges was a US appointee who concurred with the majority of >> findings which resulted in an 18 Billion dollar fine being levied. Reagan >> then unilaterally pulled the US from the Covenant instaed of paying the >> bill. >> >> >> A key role in the development of the Contra alliance was played by the >> United States following Ronald Reagan's assumption of the presidency in >> January 1981. Reagan accused the Sandinistas of importing Cuban-style >> socialism and aiding leftist guerrillas in El Salvador. On November 23 of >> that year, Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive >> 17 (NSDD-17), giving the CIA the authority to recruit and support the >> Contras with $19 million in military aid. The effort to support the Contras >> was one component of the Reagan Doctrine, which called for providing >> military support to movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist >> governments. The CIA distributed to the civilians The Freedom Fighter's >> Manual, meant to teach them simple sabotage methods (not going to work, >> damaging light bulbs, putting nails on roads, etc.) and more dangerous ones >> (how to make a molotov cocktail). >> >> In 1984, Sandinista-run Nicaraguan government filed a suit in the >> International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua >> vs. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United >> States, calling on it to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of >> force" against Nicaragua, through such actions as the placement of >> underwater mines by CIA operatives and training, funding and support for the >> guerrilla forces. The court concluded that the United States was "in breach >> of its obligations under customary international law not to use force >> against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate >> its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in >> breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, >> Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January >> 1956." Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, however, the court >> stated that the United States could be held accountable only for acts the >> Contras committed in connection with the United States, and therefore the >> "Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law >> attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them." The Court found >> that the United States "has encouraged the commission by them [the Contras] >> of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not >> find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed >> are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States >> of America" The United States was ordered to pay reparations. [16] >> >> The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the >> proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the >> Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not >> seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, whose intervention >> the court would not accept. The latter argument was affirmed by the primary >> dissenting justices -- notably U.S. Judge Schwebel, who claimed that >> "Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands." [1] Nicaragua >> then took its case to the UN Security Council, where a resolution supporting >> the ruling of the ICJ was vetoed by the United States. Nicaragua then went >> to the General Assembly, which passed a resolution supporting the ruling of >> the ICJ 94-3. >> >> Direct military aid by the United States was interrupted by the Boland >> Amendment, passed by the United States Congress in December 1982. The Boland >> Amendment was extended in October 1984 to forbid action by not only the >> Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency but all U.S. >> government agencies. >> >> Administration officials sought to arrange funding and military supplies >> by means of third-parties. These efforts culminated in the Iran-Contra >> Affair of 1986-1987, which concerned contra funding through the proceeds of >> arms sales to Iran. On February 3, 1988 the United States House of >> Representatives rejected President Reagan's request for $36.25 million to >> aid the Contras. According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North, >> an important official in the Iran-Contra affair, had been in contact with >> Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug >> charges, whom he personally met. >> >> The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan >> conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras >> were funded by drug trafficking, of which the USA was aware.[17]. Senator >> John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links >> concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that >> drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems." [2] On >> the other hand, the 1989 book, Kings of Cocaine, alleges Sandinista >> involvement in cocaine smuggling. Barry Seal, a Medellin cartel pilot took >> photos which allegedly showed a high ranking Sandinista official unloading >> cocaine shipments at a Sandinista military airport. >> >> >> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=66&case=70&code=nus&p3=4&PHPSESSID=15ef7a381e7e98d1b6c860186c05e061 >> >> http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html >> >> and believe it or not wiki is accurate on this one and has "nutshelled" it >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States >> >> As to Alz. Ronnies "bringing down the wall" I can assure that gross >> inefficiency brought about by a simple lack of cash/credit to support a >> failed government andcommunications/transport system due to >> unbridled military spending since the 50's and the absolute devastation of >> citizen confidence over Afghanistan was the cause. NOT Reagan, he just >> happened to be in office. >> >> There is no correct US written history on this point. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Good Morning Mark, >>> >>> If you get a moment, please cite the active military engagements that the >>> United States were involved in, from 1980 through 1988. >>> >>> Please cite what agency, organization, entity, or any other group of >>> Moonbats who were responsible for levying charges, holding a trial, and >>> convicting President Reagan or any member of the Reagan Administration for >>> war crimes. >>> >>> With regard to President Reagan ending the Cold War, your statement is >>> just ignorant, and I encourage you to simply "Google the phrase, "Ronald >>> Reagan ended the Cold War" and see the results you get back. Here is one >>> result from googling the phrase: >>> >>> ======== >>> >>> >>> Reagan ended Cold War, not Gorbachev >>> >>> By: Shawn Nottage >>> >>> Posted: 9/8/03 >>> >>> >>> http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2003/09/08/Commentary/Reagan.Ended.Cold.War.Not.Gorbachev-460037.shtml >>> >>> Humility is not a character trait that many liberals possess. They have >>> continuously ended up on the wrong side of history, yet have the audacity to >>> spin the facts into a contrived accusation of blame against republicans. >>> Years after the event, they feverishly bumble about the history books >>> looking for small oblique vignettes that might retract the credit from the >>> republicans who reigned victorious in situations. Laughably enough, there >>> are still those out there who think people like the Rosenbergs and Alger >>> Hiss were innocent. You could lay Whittaker Chamber's 800 page autobiography >>> in front of them, but they would rather harp on some miniscule detail about >>> an overly hyped "red scare" tragedy. I could go on endlessly on the >>> examples, but instead will try to uncover why liberals still refuse to give >>> Ronald Reagan any credit for ending the Cold War. >>> The humor in all of this is if you ask a liberal why the Cold War ended, >>> each will give you a completely opposite response -I know this from >>> first-hand experience. Most liberals you talk to will insist Gorbachev was >>> the sole reason for the end of the Cold War. Less informed liberals will >>> obtusely ignore chronological order by stating positive economic reform is >>> what turned the Soviet Union away from the Cold War. Perestroika somehow >>> eased the boiling tensions between the United States and Russia. Still, >>> others may tell you the Cold War ended because of economic collapse in >>> Russia. Which is it? As I have said, I have heard one of these opposite >>> arguments from liberals at any given time. They cannot even give the same >>> arguments, but to them it does not matter as long as Reagan is given no >>> credit whatsoever for the end of the Cold War. I am here with a bucket of >>> cold water hoping to wake up those who refuse to take the facts at face >>> value. >>> Some revisionist historians would have you believe that when Reagan >>> entered the oval office, the Soviet Union was already deteriorating. If you >>> look at the cold and hard facts, the USSR was more powerful than ever in >>> 1980. Their conventional arms outnumbered America's by a 3 to 1 ratio. The >>> Soviets had been led to believe they could get away with anything thanks to, >>> in my opinion, Jimmy Carter's passive presidency. Reagan brought in a line >>> of thinking that "détente" was nonsense. Reagan's bellicose nature scared >>> the Soviet Union, and it was the right medicine for the right problem. Any >>> other approach could have led to nuclear annihilation on either side of the >>> globe. Of course the entire time, congressional democrats opposed funding >>> Reagan's military spending. They laughed at his "Star Wars" missile defense >>> program. All the while, these militaristic buildup steps were making the >>> Soviets feel as America had for the past few decades-threatened. >>> Democrats did all they could to block spending for military purposes in >>> the 80s. Walter Mondale, in debates, was against every bit of increased >>> spending possible. They wanted to make sure that no dollar went into the >>> military unless they were sure it would improve defense. It is pretty ironic >>> how capricious democrats can be about spending the taxpayer's money when we >>> need a military increase to end the threat of nuclear war, but obstinately >>> throw around your money for complete rubbish any other time. Yes, Reagan >>> increased the national debt, but at what cost? At driving Soviet spending >>> into the ground and causing them to lag behind so far in the Cold War that >>> recovery was insurmountable. If you have sympathy for the Soviet government >>> being dismantled, perhaps you ought to read a book on the Cuban Missile >>> Crisis. Their intention was to crush us, just as we did to them. >>> Liberals reacted to Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech like chickens with >>> their heads cut off. Running around writing New York Times editorials about >>> the end of the United States at least fiscally, if not physically. It is >>> this contradiction that republicans to this day do not understand. Liberals >>> were frightened that Reagan's speech and policies would set the 'Reds' into >>> a frenzy and they would annihilate the United States, yet they refused to >>> grant Reagan any military spending increases because they did not feel the >>> threat was eminent enough. To me, this is a pure case of politics over the >>> good of the nation, if you break it down. Sure, the Soviet Union was no >>> threat, they were not trying to spread communism throughout the world, and >>> they did not have the nuclear weapons we thought they had. If you talk to >>> liberals, this is the claptrap you will get from them. Communism and the >>> Soviets were no threat to the world -the Soviets had no intention of >>> stretching their claws. That could be the truth, if you ignore the Soviets >>> occupancy (at one point or another) in: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, >>> Mongolia, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, >>> Latvia, Estonia, Albania, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Cuba, Yemen, Congo, North >>> Vietnam, Guinea-Bissau, Cambodia, Laos, South Vietnam, Ethiopia, Angola, >>> Mozambique, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Afghanistan. Why do people look the >>> other way when you shove the facts in their lap? Because they refuse to come >>> to terms with the fact that a republican could have defied odds, went >>> against the grain, persevered in his goals and ended the Cold War. It is a >>> fact, the Soviet Union was a threat. In the same breath, they will also cry >>> in despair that Reagan's aggressive rhetoric would anger the Soviets and >>> they would reign victorious in the Cold War. Yes, Gorbachev had a hand in >>> this. Reagan and Gorbachev did open the lines of communication, but this was >>> only after Reagan had asserted his "zero tolerance," no nonsense attitude >>> toward the country that, I believe, bullied around Carter for years. It >>> scared the Soviets into submission, and that is why Reagan may have been one >>> of the best presidents in this century. >>> >>> Sources: >>> >>> http://www.kstatecollegian.com:16080/issues/v099b/sp/n127/opn-Hart-3-30.html >>> Whittaker Chambers; Witness >>> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1777/poly/rrcoldwr.html >>> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/939984/posts >>> >>> ========== >>> >>> No question, President Reagan was a major contributor to the end of >>> the Soviet Union and the Cold War. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I disagree with your use of the words Reagan and Peacetime in the same >>>> sentence. >>>> >>>> I also disagree with your claim that Reagan had squat to do with ending >>>> the Cold War. >>>> >>>> His one heritage is that his Administraion was CONVICTED of war crimes >>>> and never paid the fine leveied by the ICJ for his nations actions >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Good Morning PlainOl'!! >>>>> >>>>> I respectfully, yet vociferously disagree. >>>>> >>>>> The truth is, that Ronald Reagan never "lied" as I demonstrated to you >>>>> just last week. Besides the fact that Reagan inspired this Nation after >>>>> the >>>>> dismal economic and unproductive "Carter" years, Reagan led the greatest >>>>> peacetime economic growth in recorded history. >>>>> >>>>> Reagan is responsible for ending the Cold War, and just as important, >>>>> every day for eight years, Ronald Reagan fought a battle, and led the >>>>> charge >>>>> against "big government". Reagan didn't necessarily win each and every >>>>> battle, but nevertheless Reagan stood firm, and fought the battle against >>>>> those who wish to see a "Nanny-State". Reagan opposed the federal >>>>> government being involved in our daily lives, and opposed those >>>>> individuals >>>>> who don't understand the principles and tenets of our Constitution, our >>>>> free >>>>> market economy, and those who do not hold traditional American values >>>>> dear. >>>>> >>>>> Ronald Reagan was the greatest leader, the greatest American President >>>>> in yours and my lifetime! He is sorely missed! >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:34 AM, plainolamerican >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> there's nothing beautiful about Ronald "I Can't Recall" Reagan >>>>>> he was a criminal who shouldn't been removed from office and jailed >>>>>> how soon some forget >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 4:29 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > Thank you for these beautiful pictures. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Keith In Tampa >>>>>> > <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > I don't know if these images will transfer to the Message Board >>>>>> > > within the >>>>>> > > e-mail, so I attached them separately; but I thought they were >>>>>> > > kind of >>>>>> > > neat, and folks like Biff, Fritz, Jim Staros and several other >>>>>> > > members might >>>>>> > > need to refresh their memories of how classy and dignified that >>>>>> > > the Reagans >>>>>> > > were, and what they brought to Washington....A class and dignity >>>>>> > > that we >>>>>> > > haven't seen since that era, and something that is clearly lacking >>>>>> > > today. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > ============== >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President and Nancy Reagan attending a fundraising reception for >>>>>> > > the John >>>>>> > > F. Kennedy Library Foundation (from left to right) Senator Edward >>>>>> > > Kennedy, >>>>>> > > President Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Ethel >>>>>> > > Kennedy, >>>>>> > > Caroline Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Edward Kennedy residence, >>>>>> > > McLean, >>>>>> > > Virginia. 6/24/85. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President Reagan cutting in on Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra >>>>>> > > dancing at >>>>>> > > the President's birthday party in the East Room. 2/6/81. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President Reagan talking with Audrey Hepburn and Robert Wolders >>>>>> > > at a >>>>>> > > private dinner for the Prince of Wales at the White House. 5/2/81 >>>>>> > > . >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President Reagan and Nancy Reagan posing with Rock Hudson at >>>>>> > > White House >>>>>> > > State Dinner for President De La Madrid of Mexico. 5/15/84. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President Reagan talking with Christopher Reeve and Frank Gifford >>>>>> > > during a >>>>>> > > reception and picnic in honor of the 15th Anniversary of the >>>>>> > > Special >>>>>> > > Olympics program in the Diplomatic Reception room. 6/12/83. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Princess Diana dancing with John Travolta in the entrance hall at >>>>>> > > the White >>>>>> > > House. 11/9/85. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President Reagan and Nancy Reagan Reagan dancing with (left to >>>>>> > > right) >>>>>> > > Stubby Kaye, Shirley Jones, Marvin Hamlisch and Lee Roy Reams >>>>>> > > during a >>>>>> > > rehearsal for "In Performance at the White House." 8/5/88. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > President and Nancy Reagan talking to Mother Teresa in the Oval >>>>>> > > Office. >>>>>> > > 6/20/85. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > More: >>>>>> > >http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/vips.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > -- >>>>>> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. >>>>>> > > Have a great day, >>>>>> > > Tommy >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Show quoted text - >>>>>> www.filacoffee.com >>>>>> >>>>>> > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
