Reagan responsible for death squads in central America

[jokerswild]

Remember today that Reagan funded and personally approved of death squads in el Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. In Guatemala a genocide of the Mayan Indians took place with his consent.

Jesus will not forgive him. He is now in Hell by his own strange religious beliefs.

[GWB]

Reagan's true Latin American legacy:

Reagan supported muscular U.S. assertion in the region to create a democratic revolution.

Reagan’s vision was starkly vindicated. At the beginning of his term, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay were military dictatorships. Nicaragua had just fallen to a Communist insurrection, and El Salvador seemed set to be next. By the end or shortly after Reagan’s term, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay had democratized. Nicaragua held elections won by the opposition, and El Salvador became a model in the region.

Source article of quote (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=38886)

[Chris Alger]

What, exactly. what did Reagan do to facilitate or encourage the collapse of the military dictatorships of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay?

[jokerswild]

The Central American policy was on par with Stalinism. I guess that Republicans believe that "if you want to make an omelette, then you have to break some eggs".

The raping of nuns, assasination of priests, and wholesale execution of anyone that didn't vote for CIA trained death squad leaders fits right in. Those guys moved a lot of coke for Oliver North, though. They kept George and JEB snorting.

[andyfox]

Reagan's Central American policy was a disgrace to our country. We might have reasonable disagreements on other aspects of his presidency, but surely not this. Supporting terrorists and other thugs and defending them as the moral equivalents of our founding fathers was disgusting.

[natedogg]

I can't tell you how much I despise the leftist political philosophy and today's democratic party in particular and I STILL agree with you about Reagan. You don't have to be a partisan democrat to realize he was a terrible president.

Latin america was only the beginning. There's so much to his legacy. Savings and loan, air traffic controllers, deficit spending, increasing the size of the executive branch more than any other president in history, the judicial appointments that are still screwing us today.... it goes on and on.

One thing he was great at: rhetoric. Is it any wonder people love him? Style trumps substance every time for the masses.

natedogg

[craig r]

you mentioned despising the "leftist political philosophy and today's democratic party ," but do you think the two go hand in hand? i guess an example might be better. for example, i consider myself a leftist, but i am not a democrat, green, or republican. so, do you hate "the left" or "the american left?" (the reason i seperate them is because the american left is usually used synonomously with the democratic party, but the "american left" is fairly "right" compared to a lot of european countries)

take care,

craig

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
They kept George and JEB snorting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, a little more respect for the 44th President of the United States, John Ellis Bush. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jokerswild]

It's common knowledge that both Bushes have done tons of coke. The current occupant of the Whitehouse doesn't deny it. He is on record stating that he hadn't used illegal substances past some arbitrary date in the '70s. Of course, he didn't even acknowledge to his daughters that he's had DUI's. I guess in the delusional mind of fascist agressors, petty things like drunk driving and drug abuse are just "youthful indescretions."

He and crooked Cheney have a lot in common:DUI's (plural for both) and disgraceful lack of military service. Additionally, both will hire lawyers to lie about their illegal outing of a CIA covert op.

The country will never debate putting his mug on any currency.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that Republicans believe that "if you want to make an omelette, then you have to break some eggs".

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do YOU think omelettes are made?

[MMMMMM]

Leftists have no proper conception of individual rights. Hence, they are not liberal enough--or even liberal at all.

[craig r]

anarchists (i am not saying i am one) don't have any conception of "individual rights?" and anarchism is about as far left as you are going to go. plus, leftism and liberalism are not the same thing (i actually can't stand liberals; everything is about reform, not "change." hope that makes sense). i also think it depends on the "leftist." because hitler was on the right and stalin was on the left. but, they both were dictators. so, i think that "left" or "right" tends to say more about one's economic values; i.e. capitalism or socialism. but, you can have a strong state like the nazi's had (uber-capitalism) or a strong state like stalin had (uber-socialism). anyways, kind of rambling now. but, my understanding has always been that "left" and "right" tend to show where you are in relation to capitalism.

craig

[MMMMMM]

Capitalism is merely an extension, and necessary component, of freedom. Without private property ownership, freedom cannot exist.

Any socialism requires that the government control the people (rather than merely protecting their freedoms). Therefore any form of socialism is immoral (whereas freely given charity is moral).

The essential functions of a federal government should be to prevent others from usurping your rights to life, liberty and private property; to provide for the common defense; and to conduct business with foreign powers.

[andyfox]

The natives of America (and elsewhere) apparently had no private property, and no conception of private property. Yet they enjoyed freedom. It seems their governments peformed those tasks you list as essential, and they also assured the sustenance of all through mutual cooperation and sharing of resources. I guess they were pre-Marxian communists. Perhaps such arrangement only work in smaller-scale pre-modern societies.

I sure hope eLROY doesn't read this. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
anarchists (i am not saying i am one) don't have any conception of "individual rights?" and anarchism is about as far left as you are going to go. plus, leftism and liberalism are not the same thing (i actually can't stand liberals; everything is about reform, not "change." hope that makes sense). i also think it depends on the "leftist." because hitler was on the right and stalin was on the left. but, they both were dictators. so, i think that "left" or "right" tends to say more about one's economic values; i.e. capitalism or socialism. but, you can have a strong state like the nazi's had (uber-capitalism) or a strong state like stalin had (uber-socialism). anyways, kind of rambling now. but, my understanding has always been that "left" and "right" tend to show where you are in relation to capitalism.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, you are way off. The Nazi's were certainaly not capitalists. 'Socialist' is in the party's name, for crying out loud. Under pure capitalism, you would not have the state seizing private assets, which the Nazi party practiced against the Jews and others. The US is much closer to totalitarianism today than at any time in its history, and this is not because of more capitalism, it is because of creeping socialism. Thank FDR and the New Deal for starting the ball rolling on today's mess.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
The natives of America (and elsewhere) apparently had no private property, and no conception of private property. Yet they enjoyed freedom. It seems their governments peformed those tasks you list as essential, and they also assured the sustenance of all through mutual cooperation and sharing of resources. I guess they were pre-Marxian communists. Perhaps such arrangement only work in smaller-scale pre-modern societies.

I sure hope eLROY doesn't read this. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat dishonest. Why then did Native American tribes war with one another? For entertainment? It was typically because they coveted something another tribe had, be it land, women, etc. They may not have had County Recorder's offices or the DMV to keep records of who owned what, but they certainly were willing and ready to fight to take something they wanted or defend what was theirs.

[andyfox]

The battle they fought were nowhere near as bloody as the Europeans'. When they were battling the English in New England, for example, the natives constantly complained that the English killed their women and children and fought too ferociously.

I'm not claiming that there was no war between tribes or bands here, not that their societies were perfect. Just that capitalism was not a necessity for a just and free society, at least in smaller-scale pre-modern conditions, and possibly elsewhere.

[andyfox]

Totalitarianism? Do you really mean this? Am I not free to write and otherwise espouse whatever inane political positions I choose? Wasn't the country more totalitarian by a landslide for, say, a black person living in South Carolina in 1840 than for his descendants living there today? Or for a woman living anywhere in the country then? We might not like certain provisions of the Patriot Act, but do they really compare with the Alien and Sedition Act?

[adios]

FWIW I think this is good post. I don't agree with your conclusions but a good post nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
Savings and loan,

[/ QUOTE ]

The S&L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/)

I think it's fair to say that this was a failure of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government that included both Democrats and Republicans.

[ QUOTE ]
air traffic controllers

[/ QUOTE ]

The law stated that they could not strike. To back down to the Air Traffic Controllers Union would have made such laws a sham. Reagan gave them ample opportunity to return to work. Their choices were very clear. They made their bed and had to lie in it so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
deficit spending

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny I read an op/ed piece no too long ago by Wayne Angel, a former fed governor, that Clinton's budget surplus basically brought on the most recent recession. There can be no doubt that Reagan policies were a boon to economic growth. I've never seen the problems that people attribute to the budget deficit materialize. Defense spending in the Reagan years led to the peace dividend later.

[ QUOTE ]
increasing the size of the executive branch more than any other president in history

[/ QUOTE ]

In absolute terms or nominal terms? Where's your data to back this up?

[ QUOTE ]
the judicial appointments that are still screwing us today

[/ QUOTE ]

Like who's Judicial decisions? Reagan appointed O'Connor, Kennedy, and Scalia. O'Connor and Kennedy are considered to be "swing votes" on many issues by many folks. In other words O'Connor and Kennedy are centrists. I don't think it's it all fair to state that they're far right wing idealogues.

[andyfox]

"Defense spending in the Reagan years led to the peace dividend later."

What's your data on this?

[adios]

Nominal defense spending (defense spending as a percentage of GDP) in the Reagan years vs. defense spending in the subsequent Bush and Clinton administration. For instance compare nominal defense spending in the Clinton years to nominal defense spending in the Reagan years and you'll see that defense spending in the Clinton years was actually historically low. It just kills the liberals that they have to face up to the fact that Reagan policies were viable and contributed a lot to the betterment of U.S. society. Al Hunt, a liberal, had a column today in the WSJ about Reagan that I think was the fairest statements I've read from a liberal about Reagan. BTW the Native Americans economies were probably dominated by traditional customs more or less. Communist economic systems were dominitated by central planning.

[HDPM]

A just and free society must have an idea about property. Property is simply something created by an individual. So If I go out as a pre-modern person and pick some roots and berries, they are MINE. If the tribe focibly takes them away, it is not a just and free society. If I choose to share my roots and berries with my brood for my own purposes, it is my choice. If I grow crops in a primitive agricultural civilization and the tribe or king or priest takes them away, it is not a just and free pre modern society. In any society property rights must exist. In a modern society capitalism is necessary for there to be freedom and justice.

[jokerswild]

Fascists believe that one either agrees with them, or they should be imprisoned as terrorists, sodomized, tortured, and either beaten to death, or shot.

They call this "freedom."

[andyfox]

That's not the way the American Indians understood things. Everything belonged to the community. I assume when one person picked berries they belonged to the individual who picked them and if he did the work and then they were taken from him without his permission by somebody else, that other person was dealth with by the community. But maybe not even this. It might have been a community activity and each member received what he needed. Ther was no poverty because there was no wealth with which to compare it, and because less capable member of the society were taken care of so long as they put out their best. But there was no idea that the bush from which the berries were picked belonged to one person rather than to the community as a whole.

One of the reasons why some of their societies were capable of being so mobile is that they really had few possessions as such. The members of these societies did indeed feel them to be just and free. And rather than the hard life Hobbes posited, many had a life of leisure.

[andyfox]

I'm not saying that Reagan didn't increase defense spending. I'm questioning the peace dividend.

Yes, the word Communist was corrupted forever by the Soviet style dictatorships. The traditional native societies had communist elements in terms of embracing a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" philosophy and having no private property.

Reagan made the right wing acceptable in America. That, to me, was his great achievement. He was widely regarded as unelectable because of his far right viewpoints before he was nominated in 1980. Even Gerald Ford (OK, not the greatest thinker in the world, but the previous Republican candidate) said so at the time. The polls even showed the election in a virtual dead-heat just before they were held. His landslide victory over the incumbent was a shock at the time. (Not so his second victory over Mondale; Reagan even went to Mondale's home state on the last day of campagining in an effort at a clean sweep.)

[MMMMMM]

From what I have read, Andy, it is not exactly true that native Americans had no private property. A man might own a horse or a few ponies, for example. And wasn't wampum a form of currency? They may have had no conception of land ownership, but that didn't mean a person didn't own the clothes on their back, their family's wigwam, etc.

They did have a more cooperative way of sharing general resources and tasks, however--with that much I agree.

Have you ever read Black Elk Speaks? If you haven't, you have missed a great narrative by a great man.

I also agree that a socialistic style can work pretty well for fairly small groups. In fact many well-knit families (if there is such a thing today;-)) are rather socialistic.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]


Yes, the word Communist was corrupted forever by the Soviet style dictatorships. The traditional native societies had communist elements in terms of embracing a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" philosophy and having no private property.

)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the soviet union was the most successful experiment in communism. It was relatively pure and hewed closely to the correct vision of communism. Communism necessarily entails the methods the soviets used. Stalin was a great communist. Saying the soviets had it wrong only bolsters communism. The soviets understood communism and put it into practice faithfully.

[craig r]

you stated they seized jew's property. i think it would have been tough for the jews to keep it while they were getting exterminated. there have been many capitalist states that have seized property from "non-peoples." and to say that the term "socialist" was in their name doesn't prove anything. the state was not getting all the spoils.

[natedogg]

craig:"you mentioned despising the "leftist political philosophy and today's democratic party ," but do you think the two go hand in hand? ... "the left" or "the american left?" (the reason i seperate them is because the american left is usually used synonomously with the democratic party, but the "american left" is fairly "right" compared to a lot of european countries)"

Hi Craig. To me the european left is of course worse than the american left, but both give me the creeps and the american left is not too far behind europe anyway if you ask me.

To sum up my impression of leftist philosophy in general:
No one person should ever be allowed to be rich, and anyone who is not rich is a blameless victim of the rich.

Leftist philosophy, both american and european, to me entails the elitist notion that the state knows what's best for you and must tell you what to do for your own good, and that of course includes taking as much money as it can to respend it properly. I believe Bill Clinton even made a statement to that effect in his last year when there was some talk of a refund due to the surplus. He said it would be a waste to give back money to the tax payers because they wouldn't put it to good use. Disgusting attitude.

I believe the state should never, under any circumstances, force individuals to do something for their own good, but from what I've seen this is the central goal of the left.

Also don't get me wrong, the american right, especially the christian right, is despicable to me, and comes in close second, largely to due hypocrisy issues.

natedogg