Which, of course, goes to my original point – the anti-Somoza rebellion was supported by a wide range of groups, including business people, trade unions, journalists, religious groups, moderates, even conservatives who had had it with Somoza’s brutality and corruption. When the provisional government came into power, they were not hard-line communists; in fact, they were a coalition of Sandanistas (including people like Ortega, who were in the “third way” faction), moderates, conservatives, etc. Originally, their policies were fairly moderate – they called on business leaders to lead government agencies dealing with economic issues, the worked hard to negotiate forgiveness or reduction in Nicaragua’s foreign debt, and, as I said above, they reached out to the U.S. The provisional government also restructured and reformed the country’s police and military forces (which had been under Somoza’s control). They did break up the Somoza’s land holdings and distributed some of his land to poor farmers and the like, but they did not otherwise try to “collectivize” agriculture in those early days. And, while they nationalized banks and financial institutions, those institutions were already in bankrupcty, and the nationalization plan was a part of an overall strategy to re-stabilize the Nicaraguan economy (including debt relief, etc.).

Again, I never argued that the hard-line Sandanistas were good guys (though, as Juan says, they were democratically elected). Rather, I argued that Reagan’s misguided support of the Contras (and his imposition of economic sanctions, which crippled the country just as it was trying to fix its economic problems) had the unfortunate effect of playing into the hardliner’s hands. Reagan contributed to the radicalization of the Nicaraguan government.

Finally, your characterization of the 1990 elections is way off. As I said, the Contra movement had the opposite effect of its apparent intent – it pushed the government to the radical left and largely contributed to the Sandanista’s supression of dissent. Moreover, the Contras never were able to oust the Sandanista government – though they did succeed in causing untold death and destruction and forcing the government to spend more and more on defense. Ultimately, the Contras realized they could not defeat the Sandanistas, and so they agreed to a peace agreement negotiated by Costa Rica – NOT the U.S. – under which the government agreed to hold elections, the Contras agreed to put down their arms, and the government granted amnesty to the rank and file Contras. And, while Ortega lost the upcoming election (note that the Sandanistas kept their end of the bargain, including pushing for elections as soon as they were practical; only a few months after the peace deal was reached, as I recall), it was not as one-sided as you claim. The Sandanistas did win seats in the legislature, but, as you say, the moderate/conservative party won.

As far as the El Salvador situation is concerned, you really have it backwards. Take a look at the U.N Truth Commission reports. You can get them online. The El Salvadoran government was one of the most brutal in all of Central America – and, as the truth commission makes clear, was responsible for nearly all of the brutality and attrocities committed during the civil war. (By the way, I presume you know who Archbishop Ramirez was, don’t you?)

Dave

Sweet dreams, 0-4.

Do I take my imaginary victory lap now, Exley?
Or as you would say:
“mission accomplished.”
Comment by barfly — September

he was a uniquely monstrous dictator in the modern world covering the last 30 years Exley

And so was Polpot . . .
Comment by barfly

0-4, you’re busted – you did say “thirty years” – which encompasses Polpot, and the Shah of Iran. Ready to concede again? It doesn’t hurt as much the second time. How’s it feel to get pantsed by your own strawman?

Goodnite, 0-4.

See you tomorrow.

Wiki speaks of his secret police, SAVAK:

SAVAK had virtually unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It operated its own detention centres, like the notorious Evin Prison. It is universally accepted that SAVAK routinely subjected detainees to physical torture. In addition to domestic security the service’s tasks extended to the surveillance of Iranians (especially students on government stipends) abroad, notably in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom.

SAVAK agents often carried out operations against each other. Teymur Bakhtiar was assassinated by SAVAK agents in 1970, and Mansur Rafizadeh, SAVAK’s United States director during the 1970s, reported that General Nassiri’s phone was tapped. Hussein Fardust, a former classmate of the Shah, was a deputy director of SAVAK until he was appointed head of the Imperial Inspectorate, also known as the Special Intelligence Bureau, to watch over high-level government officials, including SAVAK directors. Fardust later became director of SAVAMA, the post-revolution carbon copy of the original SAVAK organization. Also, SAVAK planned and executed Black Friday (1978), although the role of PLO agents in Black Friday has not been disproven. The CIA closely watched over SAVAK and provided them with intelligence on possible targets for assassination, many of whom were Communists. Many Communists were imprisoned or mysteriously disappeared as a result of this relationship. It is believed that the last director of SAVAK was on the payroll of the CIA.

Saddam seems less and less “unique.”

Care to make it 0-5, 0-4?

When they went to war, the more immediate and deadlier debate was Iran and the possibility of radical Shiite Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Thus, once again, as in World War II, the U.S. was forced to aid a loathsome dictatorship (USSR in WWII and then Iraq in the 1980s) in order to defeat the more immediate threat. of Iran…Once the Iranian threat subsided, the U.S was able to turn its attention to Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein….The parellels between US aid to the USSR in WWII against the Nazis and US aid to Iraq in the 1980s to defeat Iran are striking and unassailable.

Comment by Exley

You still didn’t post my saying that “I agreed with you” – because it didn’t happen. Every time you lose, you change the terms of debate – from the initial “past thirty years,” to “since ‘79,” and when both of those were shot down, you retreated to “But Saddam and Polpot weren’t in power at the same time” because Polpot was deposed in’Jan. 79, although he obviously was “in power in ‘79,” and Saddam wasn’t formally made leader until months later, also in ‘79. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering to behold – in all its rancid glory.

Here are the facts of the Iran/Iraq war:

1. We armed Saddam, and gave him technical assistance.

2. We (meaning Reagan) sold weapons to the Iranians to get the release of hostages.

3. After the Iranians and others saw how easily Reagan could be rolled, they took more hostages – to be bartered with the Reagans’ for more weapons. His policy actually spurred the terrorists into a further round of hostage-taking, to get more weapons with which to kill Iraqis.

4. After they had killed a sufficient number of each others’ forces with weapons supplied by Reagan, they called a weary truce, and began totalling the cost.

5. Saddam, reacting to Bush administration representative April Glaspie’s stated assurances that America would not interfere if Saddam invaded Kuwait in response to Kuwaiti slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields, retaliated, and the Gulf War soon began. Fake stories surfaced (infants pulled from incubators and slammed to the floor, etc.), planted to propagandize Americans into accepting the invasion.

6. After Saddam’s defeat, and the country’s apportionment, the Bush 1 administration, knowing the consequences of the Pottery Barn Rule (you break it you own it) encouraged Iraqis to rise up, and overthrow Hussein. Bush provided no resources to aid them, and they were slaughtered by weapons the Bush administration allowed Hussein to keep after the war.

As I have shown, republicans are responsible for the terrorist world in which we live, as much responsible as those they empower.

I call that 0-4. I knew you could do it.

Reagan supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, so republicans credibility on this issue is nil, and when they talk of Saddam’s brutalities, they point the finger of blame back at themselves.

Your naivete bespeaks an ignorance of history. To criticize the United States for giving limited aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s is like saying the U.S. was wrong to supply aid to the Soviet Union in World War II against Nazi Germany….As you correctly stated, Stalin and Hitler were both monstrous, evil dictators (Indeed, Stalin killed more people than Hitler). Yet, the more immediate and dangerous threat to the world in the late 1930s into the 1940s was Nazi Germany. Thus, the US and other allies held their proverbial nose and supplied the Soviet Union as the Soviets fought against the Nazis. Once the Nazis were defeated, the West turned its resources and attention to defeat the next immediate threat — that posed by the USSR.

Such was the case in the 1980s…Both Iraq and Iran were despicable regimes led by a monstrous dictatorship. When they went to war, the more immediate and deadlier debate was Iran and the possibility of radical Shiite Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Thus, once again, as in World War II, the U.S. was forced to aid a loathsome dictatorship (USSR in WWII and then Iraq in the 1980s) in order to defeat the more immediate threat. of Iran…Once the Iranian threat subsided, the U.S was able to turn its attention to Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein….The parellels between US aid to the USSR in WWII against the Nazis and US aid to Iraq in the 1980s to defeat Iran are striking and unassailable.

I have to make a trip to the store for my wife. Collect your thoughts, and we’ll debate in a few minutes.

I can smell 0-4 coming, don’t disappoint me!

Comment by Exley

Please show me were I said this. How Reaganish of you – will you now also plead alzheimers?

Y’know; after the teacher had handed you your “f,” did you try to convince her that the right answers were, in fact, wrong?

Do you deny the Contras killed those who would not join?

C’mon 0-3, prove me wrong. And not by simply saying “you’re wrong.” Post a link.

The question 0-3 runs from is: Do you admit that republicans come to the terrorism debate with bloody hands?

Reagan supplied weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, so republicans credibility on this issue is nil, and when they talk of Saddam’s brutalities, they point the finger of blame back at themselves.

You said ‘79. Polpot was in power in ‘79, 0-3.

Still won’t answer my question, coward?

Well, that’s probably for the best, chief. I think you have endured enough humiliation for one ma. Take a few days off and do your best to pick up whatever remaining pieces of dignity that you may have left.

Good luck, Barfly…We’re all pullin’ for ya, big guy!

Better luck next time. sport.

Be all you can be – or I’ll put a bullet in you!