Centerfield

I have to ask:

Why on earth was supporting opposition to the Nicaraguans a good idea? Unless you think the rhetoric against them was true.

Sandinistas I should say.

The Sandinistas were, in fact, a repressive, undemocratic government.

Of course, if the contras had won, I'm sure the same would've been true of them, too. That's what I'm grumbling about.

Hmm...too simple, that statement. I have come to believe from the evidence I've seen (albeit some years ago) that the Sandinistas were a repressive, undemocratic government.

I'm not convinced, though, by Reagan's old rhetoric that Central America was in danger of being fallen dominoes.

Guesses, gambles, risks, all on a menu of imperfect or downright crappy choices. Self-interest for all. Conflicting interests for many. That's foreign policy and that's diplomacy.

Friend is a word diplomats use loosely as a tool.

The Sandinistas were far more representative and democratic than virtually any other government in Nicaraguan history and certainly far more so than the Somoza family. The Contras were far, far worse than the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas weren't saints but I think you need to revisit the evidence and ignore anything said by anyone even remotely related to the Reagan Administration.

And remember, they agreed to hold an election. When they lost, they gave up power. Hardly dictatorial.

Jon Jay:

Could you expand on your comment? I lived there during the 80's. I remember things differently. The only repressive, undemocratic figure I remember at that time was the Reagan administration and its involvement in the region.

The Sandinistas were not perfect. However, the U.S. government had no right to fund a terrorist organization (through illegal means) where _thousands of innocent people died._ The Sandinista revolution was the result of decades of U.S. backed dictatorship and oppression.

Current relationships with Latin America would be very different if the U.S. was really the good neighbor that it claims to be. But the U.S. doesn't care about Latin America. All that matters is the mighty dollar. Democracy and freedom are irrelevant; whose brand of democracy should Latin America choose anyway, and for the whose benefit? But hey, the U.S. didn't get to be the most influential nation in the world by being a good neighbor, did it?

IMHO this is what got us into the mess we are in in the ME to begin with. Meddling for our own short term monetary interests instead of long term thinking. I was hoping we were done with that sort of foreign policy since it has proven to be such a loser in the past.

Reminder, separate out "U.S" and "our interests" from the politicos, corporate types, and all their lobbyists who take and use power to get more and more of what they want no matter what the costs.

Just reported out that Ford CEO was handed 25M while his co. lost billions as a sample.
This garbage should have been stopped 25 years ago with other better models.

Could you expand on your comment? I lived there during the 80's. I remember things differently. The only repressive, undemocratic figure I remember at that time was the Reagan administration and its involvement in the region.

It occurred to me while I slept that they may not have exceeded the median level of Central American oppressiveness at the time. But that doesn't mean they weren't repressive. There's rather alot of evidence on the subject.

Can fair elections be held when press freedom is nonexistent and political opponents are jailed? Do you feel recent Russian elections have been free and fair, given that potentially serious opponents have been messed with and denied media access, and oppositional journalists killed? Another good example would be the first election Hitler won a majority in - the Storm Troopers were out on the streets beating people up and some of his opponents had been jailed.

There was much more international pressure and observation in the '90 elections than in '84. It's also possible that the Soviet Sandinista funding stream may've dried up, making operations hard.

Ohh John, you're in the middle of it now. They have swarmed!! And little do they know you're one of the "left of center" centrists. Good luck!! ;-)

Remember that Yemen on the border with Saudi Arabia has a sizeable Shiite community, if Iran decides to respond in kind you will see a regional religious war in the middle east with Saudi Arabia caught up in the cycle of bombings and beheadings. Saudi Arabia ,being the keeper of the Islamic holy places, makes this an explosive situation that would dwarf anything going on in Iraq. In addition Iraq would deteriorate and Lebanon would fall apart if Iran decided to orchestrate a regional response to our support of dissidents. If you play with fire be prepared to get burned.

Another good example would be the first election Hitler won a majority in - the Storm Troopers were out on the streets beating people up and some of his opponents had been jailed.

Just to be picky and contrary--Hitler never won a majority in a popular vote for any political office. Ever. He became chancellor by being head of the party in the elections of 1933 after the suspension of civil rights and the official suppression of other parties, and the Nazis still didn't get a majority in the elections, an had to share power until they could subvert the coalition and abolish the NVDP. having control of the cabinet, they imediately passed the Enabling Acts and banned the formation of new parties so that the NVDP could not be re-formed.

His succession to Fuhrer on the death of Hindenburg was based on a cabinet vote declaring the presidency dormant and trasferring all presidential powers to the chancellor--Hitler. The popular plebiscite was to approve the suspension of the presidency--but by then Hitler was already firmly in charge, and with complete control of the electoral apparatus, the new cabinet-written laws were approved by referendum. Kinda like a Castro "election."

Goodwin's Law has now been invoked.

Despite the lame reporting concerning anti-Iranian insurgents (ABC for one), it is true that Iran thinks fostering chaos abroad suffers no reaction. The groups everyone talks about attacking Iran will hardly one day take over Iran. The question is whether we should support (indirectly), groups that 1. seek to retaliate against Iranian suppression of those these groups represent and 2. attack those Iranian forces and leaders that are engaged in terrorism and oppression.

It might be worth reviewing our history with Iran. It has been suggested that our terrible role in Iran was to first allow the British to continue ripping off the Iranian people. Actually, unless someone shows me I'm wrong, England paid a fair percentage to Iran for the oil it helped discover and extract at the cost of billions. It was the British and Americans that ensured Russia got the oil it needed to fight the Germans and keep Hitler from invading Iran. The Mullahs wouldn't have liked that. After the war, it was the allies that forced the Russian tanks to leave to the relief of the Iranians, nationalists and the Mullahs. Dr. Mossadegh was a nationalist PM who wanted to nationalize the oil companies without fair compensation. He often lamented at how unfair the British were, but statistics do not support that. He often violated parliamentary procedures and unwittingly helped the communist party to lay the ground work for a Soviet invasion, by first splintering his own nationalist party.. Russians? Who else would break inevitable UN sanctions to offer Iran the help it would have needed to run its oil technology? The communist party attempted assassinations, encouraged the Soviets and showed contempt for Constitutional Process Dr. Mossadegh claimed to up hold. The Mullahs were opposed to Soviet intervention (and the nationalists) and gave the green light along with the military to reject the PM. Let us be very clear about that. The Iranian military was opposed to the Soviets. Now why is that wrong when the Turkish military took such a view?

To say that Eisenhower simply wanted to control Iranian oil (needed for the Marshal Plan) and subject Iranians to the Shah's tyranny is absurd. Mossadegh could not approve the nationalization without the Shah's consent. Here is just a small piece of information regarding the coup from the NYT. Eisenhower kept Iranians from waking up one morning to the Red Army’s tanks in the streets of Tehran. Funny how the Mullahs knew that then, but today depend on the Russians for air defense. Although, no one excuses SAVAK, the White Revolution went further than any Mullah Revolution, in bringing prosperity and some pretense of justice to the Iranian people. Today, the Mullahs have taken away Mossadegh's name from the street sign in Tehran. They denounce him, much in the same way they denounced him in 1953. They spin their history as one of liberation against Western oppression, which is the big lie behind the Shah's Coup. To compare Iranian history to South America is more than a stretch.

This little diversion in history is one reason why many Iranians want to be Western friends. As long as a disturbed Western media frames the issues in biased context, it will be hard for the public to understand the forces at work. This slanted environment gives rise to the usual bi-polar analysis given to most pressing issues. We will have to look much deeper for answers.

Can Iran make nukes? ABC posted a similar story.

A room without a view

Goodwin has a law too? ;-)

It's also possible that the Soviet Sandinista funding stream may've dried up, making operations hard.

I think that's a lot closer to home, as it most assuredly DID dry up in '89. No more Soviet $upport, and Cuba, floundering with the loss of their $12B in Soviet aid, was in no position to assist.

Well, you see Putin making deals with Chavez. I guess the Russians want some return on their investment$. Actually, I had more respect for their "purity" in aid before the Wall came down. Now, if there's a buck to be made, they might promote more chaos than in the good old days.

Yes, this is much better than the Shah

Poor, Mossedegh, I think given his biography, he would be sad with the present state of affairs. I wonder whether he would support the resistance now. In many ways Iran has regressed beyond 1953. This was hardly what he wanted when he set the wheels in motion.