The United Nations thread

[Danoff]

And then, when things don't go thier way, they ignore it.

So did we.

 

[vladimir]

danoff,

what do you contribute to the UN? as far as i know the US still refuses to pay the UN...



famine,

sorry, but your numbers are absolutely wrong. france has a greater population than great britain. according to the EU itself, great britain has a population of 58,6 million and france has 60,4 million.
and don't forget germany with the highest population (82 million) that pays the most money to the EU has fewer seats than everyone else in the EU when you compare the seats with the population.

 

[Danoff]

what do you contribute to the UN? as far as i know the US still refuses to pay the UN...

Holy crap!!!!

 

[vladimir]

Holy crap!!!!

excuse me?

the US still has debts.

btw, france pays three times as much for the UN as russia or china...and germany pays more than france and britain and we still don't have a seat in the security council.

 

[Danoff]

we'll just ignore US wartime contributions then. Let's also forget about medical aid and food handouts...

 

[Famine]

sorry, but your numbers are absolutely wrong. france has a greater population than great britain. according to the EU itself, great britain has a population of 58,6 million and france has 60,4 million.

That'll teach me to check...

France: 60,424,213
UK: 60,270,708

So we're about level-pegging.

 

[Pistachio]

I don't see how France gains from the UN a great deal compared to the US.

I mean you do realize that the US has vetoed more resolutions than any other country don't you? I have a full list of them if you want. They range from resolutions "calling on all states to obey international law" to resolutions to "send UN observers to the middle-east".

And besides, it isn't like the vetoes or UN rulings bother the US at all, an example is when demanded by the World Court to pay massive reparations to Nicaragua for the illegal war they waged against them the US simply refused, never paid, in fact the US increased its illegal funding for the war as a response to the ruling.

Another example would be the 75+ resolutions Israel has breeched, which funnily enough don’t rouse much more than a tap on the wrist for Israel by the US in the form of a quick verbal chastising at best, but more often in a ramp up of military aid to Israel.

Who cares what the UN says, "multi-laterally if we can uni-laterally if we must". That pretty much sums it up, we will support the UN when it agrees with us and disregard, or even go so far as to smear it and claim that it is irrelevant when it doesn't.

I have no doubt that France only does what is in its own interest (much the same as most all the powerful nations), vetoing resolutions when business interests deem it wise (i.e. Iraq), it was just coincidental that the vetoe was ethically correct.

 

[Pistachio]

Don't forget Turkey for its troops in Cyprus, Morocco for being in the Western Sahara, Armenia for being in Azerbaijan, Croatia for its treatment of Serbs, South Africa's occupation of Namibia, Indonesia for troops in West Timor, India and Pakistan for developing nuclear missles, not to mention Iran, who last year thumbed its nose at a Canadian proposed UN draft resolution regarding its human rights record.

Can't believe i totally missed this post before, sorry.

Anyway back to the point, you are right in saying that the powerful states aren't the only ones who disregard international law, but they are by far the most prominent. I mean we could all agree the level of crimes committed by Hitler or Stalin where much more prominent than Milosevic or the Saudi Government. If only for the simple reason that they had such huge amounts of power, more power is more responsibility and is also more ability to cause harm.
Another example would be if HYPOTHETICALY if Iraq attacked Kuwait, it would be quickly and severely punished, while if the US attempted the same actions in Panama a couple months earlier *HINT* it would be cast off into the abyss of history never to be remembered and would raise little to no interest from anyone.

As for each case individually you seem right as far as I know, I’m not very well versed as far as Morocco and Armenia go, but i can agree with your other examples, but then i would have to call for other countries to be added to the list, including Saudi Arabia who quite simply is far worse than Iran as far as human rights are concerned, though the medias omission of this makes it hard to discover.

Furthermore, it is little known that Albanians actually killed more people outright than the Serbians did up to mid-January 1999, that is before the NATO bombings, British Defense Minister George Robertson stated "the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian authorities had been." This group according to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook also "committed more breaches of the ceasefire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths than the [Yugoslab] security forces". "This weekend" being the time when NATO's bombing campaign had been committed. So despite you being right it is only fair to point out that the CIA funded Albanians were also criminals. [I just realized you mentioned nothing about Milosevic at all, but Croatian treatment of Serbians... oh well, im just saying that all parties to a crime should be held accountable equally]

Turkey is an interesting case, can anyone remember hearing about Turkish atrocities before the Iraq war? They definitely occurred as barring Israel and Egypt, Turkey and Colombia have been in competition for military aid from the US since the early 90's and have both been committing crimes for ages, very notable is the Turkish genocide against the Kurds. Despite how long it has been happening information has only been seeping in through the mass media since Turkey caved into the demands of 95% of its population not to allow US forces to go through Turkey to Iraq. Just as funny is how much we would hear about Chinas human rights violations before September 11. Now that the two countries are in low level co-operation, China moving towards a free-market capitalist country, you hardly hear about there human rights violations, a quick look at human rights watch http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=china shows that the problems certainly haven’t disappeared. There are many more such examples but the underlying message is that even small states can break the law, but being a powerful country or having a powerful countries support is very helpful.

Then there's Sudan, who is about to turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in its borders despite a draft resolution being proposed at this very minute. This is on top of prior violations.

Turning a blind eye is a euphemism, the militia's don't have helicopter gunships or jet bombers, and coincidently bombs and such have been found all over the place. They have government support.

With the exception of India and Pakistan, not very large or powerful countries but each has/or is in current violation of UN resolutions. See... its not just the big boys who don't play by the rules. A lot of countries blow off the UN when it doesn't suit them.

Totally agree, though the question of "to what extent?" should be raised.

Funny you should mention Israel, though. Here's a country who very existence was mandated by the UN, but was prompty attacked upon its creation in 1948 by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon whom all refused to acknowledge its very existence. Then they did it again in 1967 and again in 1973. I don't think those Arab states much observed the will of the UN then, either.

I will ask you not to over-simplify things here though. You claim a simple attack from Arabs in general. It would be wise to realize that between 1967 and 1973 full peace treaties had been offered to Israel in 1971 by Egypt and then Jordon.
In fact there was an effort by Arab states to reach a settlement during this time. We should also not that during this time the US vetoed (in isolation mind you) a resolution in 1973 that "Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories." which is a fair ask and some argue this is one of the most important factors in the proceeding war.
Furthermore "So the United States backed Israel's rejection of Sadat's peace offer. That led directly to the 1973 war. " - Noam Chomsky

It is also arguable who attacked who first in 1967, as far as all sources go Israel indeed attacked first, the real argument was weather or not it was an act of self-defence in case of an IMINANT use of force. This question is easily answered, we can merely go back to what was said by Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68 "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

But I really don't want to go off on a tangent considering what a massive issue this is, just please don't simplify. I did a quick google on the issues and found a source that is brief but it seems accurate (as in not "the arabs attacked Israel" simplifications) http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.htm
It also has info on other events, and is from an educational institution which are USUALY decent sources of information.

As for Nicaragua, there is little doubt the US funded Contras were shady individuals. I think Americans who do a little research on exactly where their tax dollars ended up in 1982 might be a little upset. Ashamed even.

Agreed.

But then again, maybe not. The situation was certainly more complex than you present it. The US DID pull funding from Nicaragua when it was clear the Somoza dictatorship was brutalizing its own people and rigging elections, and the Carter administration DID initially accept the new FSLN government.

No comment, i may run off to confirm this.

But the Sandinistas at the time weren't exactly a bunch of choir boys either. They had their own problems and came into power in exactly the same manner as all the other despots that ruled the country before: armed revolution and a bloody civil war. They had their own brand of social repression and I don't feel they were any more legitimate a government than the slimey Somozas were.

"I never described the Sandinistas as perfect democrats or whatever your phrase was. What I did was quote the World Bank, OXFAM, the Jesuit Order and others who recognize that what they were doing was to use the meager resources of that country for the benefit of the poor majority. That's why health standards shot up. That's why literacy shot up. That's why agrarian reform proceeded, the only place in the region. That's why subsistence agriculture improved and consumption of food increased" - Noam Chomsky

Although they had there own problems, by and large they were one of the best governments in the third world, Oxfam said that Nicaragua set "the threat of a good example." (referring to the “threat” that the Reagan administration saw). Please nobody start questioning the credibility of NGO's, nothing is more credible than OXFAM, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc.

When it became clear they were more interested being a client of the USSR rather than anything remotely resembling a democracy, it was old Ronny who authorized the Contra backing after Congress decided they were simply too shady to support. It was either that or Nicaragua becoming another staging area for the Soviets. El Salvador was already another country the Soviets were trying to get their hands on. Two bad choices. Pick one.

Prior to the embargo placed on Nicaragua only 20% of its trade was with the Soviet bloc, the rest of its trade from an assortment of places. After the embargo, and since it was under a constant attack it obviously required weaponry to defend itself. Since all other sources of arms were blocked by US efforts, it THEN turned to the Soviet bloc for its arms (and military advisers). This caused funds to be taken out of reforms (reforms which were lauded by OXFAM for their social benefits) and put into military spending.
This was the real issue, the reason why Nicaragua was attacked, as I said before, it had “the threat of a good example”, very likely to be emulated by other Latin American nations as it showed great success in social reforms until it was beset upon by a superpower.


Sorry for writing soo much, soo much to cover, soo much time burnt.

 

[///M-Spec]

Let's get this discussion back down to a manageable size.

Re: Powerful states doing as they please.
I think this happens all the time. I think the scale of any wrongdoing simply goes up in proportion to how large and powerful the country is, which makes sense in a macabre sort of way. You've made some good points in this arena and I am not inclined to disagree with any at this point.

I DO think that perhaps you've singled out the United States on this forum in general to an excessive extent. Perhaps that is only to counter-argue against those who believe the US is virtuous beyond reproach (and they would be mistaken).

But however much the US does its share of bad in the world, it should be put into proper context, which brings us to our next point.

Re: Over simplifying

I will ask you not to over-simplify things here though.

And thats an important point to remember. Over simplifying is bad. Context is important. In fact, it is crucial in understanding why a country who claims to be a proponent of democracy and justice failed to do so at so many key points in the last 50 years.

Let me use just one example. We already talked about Nicaragua, so let's go back there. When the Sandanista government was plagued with a counter insurgancy in the mid 80s, they decided to censor and/or suspend publication of anti-government newspaper La Prensa. They instituted conscription and suspended civil liberties. They imprisoned dissidents ---EXACTLY the sort of social repression the movement rose up against when they overthrew the Somoza dictatorship.

Why did this happen? How could a group of people that was supposed to be committed to reforming their society return to the old hated practices they rebelled against? The answer is because they thought they HAD to in order to preserve themselves. It was either that or let the country fall back into to chaos. You will find the same sort thing happening in Iran or Cambodia or any number of places that overthrew an oppressive dictatorship only to institute their own brand of injustices.

I think if you step back and look at US foreign policy during the cold war, you'll find the same kind of thinking. Central America. Southeast Asia. The Middle East. The government thought of these places as polical battlegrounds and they were convinced that if they lost, America would be next. I made a post long ago in this forum that characterised many of the world's current problems as ghosts of the cold war.

Does it make any of it right? No. But at least it sheds context on a series of actions which otherwise defy explanation. There is a difference between a man who commits a wrong doing because he LIKES to and a man who does it because he thinks he has no other choice if he wants to save his own life.

Re: Israel
Let's save this for a different thread. Yes, I believe the 1967 war was a pre-emptive attack too.


M

 

[///M-Spec]

Re: Nicaragua

Prior to the embargo placed on Nicaragua only 20% of its trade was with the Soviet bloc, the rest of its trade from an assortment of places. After the embargo, and since it was under a constant attack it obviously required weaponry to defend itself. Since all other sources of arms were blocked by US efforts, it THEN turned to the Soviet bloc for its arms (and military advisers). This caused funds to be taken out of reforms (reforms which were lauded by OXFAM for their social benefits) and put into military spending.
This was the real issue, the reason why Nicaragua was attacked, as I said before, it had “the threat of a good example”, very likely to be emulated by other Latin American nations as it showed great success in social reforms until it was beset upon by a superpower.

I looked a little closer into the history of this country and US involvement in it. Very sad. Its interesting how there are two sides to every story though. According to the Reagan administration, the reason the US adopted a hostile position towards the Sandanista government was because Nicaragua was acting as a channel for Soviet weapons into the region, going to El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala. The weapons were being used to overthrow the governments there. He believed the only way to fight Soviet influence there was to fund the aforementioned Contras.

In hindsight, he was obviously correct in his assumptions. The USSR very much wanted a friendly communist country on the mainland of the Americas and cooperation with the new Sandanista government was clearly the way to achive it.

Now, based on your post, it sounds like you believe that the USSR provided no material support for the Sandanista revolution until the Reagan administration placed an embargo and funded Contras? That is wasn't very clear at the time they were cooperating with the Soviets to make all of Central America another bloc of Soviet client countries? That there was no reason to think Nicaragua would not become another flashpoint like the Cuban missle crisis? That the government didn't want anything to do with Soviet strategic plans for the region UNTIL big, bad United States bullied them into it?

Sounds very, very unlikely to me.

Again, you seem to like to paint the picture of America as being the sole aggressor in a campaign to exert some kind of colonial or imperial influence on tiny, helpless countries. I think this picture is a skewed exaggration of the truth. On the other end of American influence in a country there is almost always Soviet influence.


M

 

[ledhed]

Well to understand Pistachio's position it helps to understand Noam chomski the fella he seems to be a disciple of. 'Ol Noam is a strident critic of Americas foriegn policy and seems to hold the US to a much higher standard than other countrys . His views although not in the mainstream, are to me at least, just another way of looking at events. I do not agree with much of his writing but I can understand his arguments.
The Isreali problem deserves its own two billion threads but just to address the 6 day war ; Yes Israel attacked pre -emptively . But remember all the nations attacked had in the period before the war lined up against Isreal and made thier intentions very clear that Isreal must be destroyed at all cost and where in the proccess of preparing to do just that. They should have done a better job , they did not , so they lost. '73 was a surprise attack and was very close to succeeding. The US resuplied the Isreali's and the Arabs from that point on blame the US for thier losing that war ...instead of course themselves. That would not be politivcaly expedient. Make a thread for the Middle east , maybe we can solve it and get a Nobel prize.
The Sandinista's and the contra's belong in the context of the cold war. So much bad crap went on because of the US and Soviets and the pawns in between , that you could spend your life going through it all, trying to make more sense than ;" communist bad" anyone else "not so bad".
The UN now days seems to be an forum for France to blatantly set itself up as the Muslim worlds alternative to the US. So much so that France veto'd a direct appeal to Nato by the president of Afghanistan for troops to help protect people in the comming elections. France , would rather see dead people than be seen as cooperating with the US , even when its the right thing to do. This is an example of what can go wrong , when a little player tries to insert itself back into a place it has held only in the minds of it foolish leaders.

 

[Pistachio]

Re: Nicaragua



I looked a little closer into the history of this country and US involvement in it. Very sad. Its interesting how there are two sides to every story though. According to the Reagan administration, the reason the US adopted a hostile position towards the Sandanista government was because Nicaragua was acting as a channel for Soviet weapons into the region, going to El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala. The weapons were being used to overthrow the governments there. He believed the only way to fight Soviet influence there was to fund the aforementioned Contras.

You should read up on the governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala... i suggest El Salvador moreso. They were far worse than the Sandinistas, and coincidentaly US clients.

As for Sandinistas being communst, i don't see it. I did some research and found they did little nationalisation except for taking the formerly Samoza owned farms (some 20% of the nations farms) and the completely bankrupt banking industry.

Also, after going through many pages that completely failed to mention any US involvement at all (i don't see how a site can take itself seriously if it is going to try and forget the key US involvement, which funnily enough the Library of Congress did :rollseyes: ) i came across this site, http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central_america/nicaragua/history.htm very informative and puts everything in correct cronological order so people can see that the regretable actions of the Sandinistas were merely (and in my opinion understandable) reactions to the US.

And they did alot of good the Sandinistas, they were lauded by NGO's for there concern for the well being of the people. They brought democracy to the country and held elections regularly, once in 1984 in which the Sandinistas won 63% of the vote. And were indeed "overthrown" by an election, which they allowed despite knowing it's outcome. I just don't understand why you would support a group of criminals and terrorists like the contras if an election was around the corner. In fact just in 2000 "mayoral elections saw the Sandinistas gain control of 11 out of 17 departmental capitals, and popular FSLN member Herty Lewites easily won in Managua." Not to mention taking illiteracy from 50% to 13% and reducing infant deaths to 1/3rd of what it used to be.

In hindsight, he was obviously correct in his assumptions. The USSR very much wanted a friendly communist country on the mainland of the Americas and cooperation with the new Sandanista government was clearly the way to achive it.

I mentioned before why i didn't think of it as communist, actually i expected MORE nationalisation than i discovered in my research.

Now, based on your post, it sounds like you believe that the USSR provided no material support for the Sandanista revolution until the Reagan administration placed an embargo and funded Contras? That is wasn't very clear at the time they were cooperating with the Soviets to make all of Central America another bloc of Soviet client countries? That there was no reason to think Nicaragua would not become another flashpoint like the Cuban missle crisis? That the government didn't want anything to do with Soviet strategic plans for the region UNTIL big, bad United States bullied them into it?

I just said that trade was only at 20% with the soviet bloc before US support for the contras. Soviet support for the Sandinistas is overexaggerated by the US media at best, and never is the context taken into account (they were in a war and desperately in need of help).

Again, you seem to like to paint the picture of America as being the sole aggressor in a campaign to exert some kind of colonial or imperial influence on tiny, helpless countries. I think this picture is a skewed exaggration of the truth. On the other end of American influence in a country there is almost always Soviet influence.

Lets just stick to one case at a time here . I have no doubt the US wanted to exert power over the tiny country, if history has shown us anything it is that the powerful will subvert the weak for its own self interests, and this is without any exception i can think of.
The importance of Nicaragua has always been known, even as far back as Spanish dominance. The US has been concerned in it's comings and going for a long time, and supported the ruthless Samoza dictatorships for much of this time, a client.

 

[///M-Spec]

As for Sandinistas being communst, i don't see it. I did some research and found they did little nationalisation except for taking the formerly Samoza owned farms (some 20% of the nations farms) and the completely bankrupt banking industry.

The core of the Sandinista movement was based on Marxist-Leninist ideological principles. I don't know why this is in question. Look it up. Its true.

But whether the Sandinistas were or were not communist is besides the point. The point I was making was that they were receiving financial, technical and logistical support from the USSR and Cuba before, during and after the overthrow of the government. The Soviet Union supplied more than $500 million in military aid alone from '79 to '86, sending tanks, helicopters, artillery and other sophisticated weapons. Cuba sent over 3,500 military advisors, including pilots that flew the state of the art Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter.

The US was concerned that Nicaragua would become another Cuba, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, etc. That is why the Contras were funded ---illegally without support of the US Congress, I may add.

Also, after going through many pages that completely failed to mention any US involvement at all (i don't see how a site can take itself seriously if it is going to try and forget the key US involvement, which funnily enough the Library of Congress did :rollseyes: ) i came across this site, http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central_america/nicaragua/history.htm very informative and puts everything in correct cronological order so people can see that the regretable actions of the Sandinistas were merely (and in my opinion understandable) reactions to the US.

That's funny, the Library of Congress pages I read indicated plenty of US involvement. (LINK)

The Lonely Planet link is a joke. It offers NO reasons for US backing of the Contras and convinently omits Sandinista cooperation with the USSR. It also omits Sandinista crackdowns on political dissidents and its censorship of newspapers that didn't support the movement. It is distinctly biased against the US.

And they did alot of good the Sandinistas, they were lauded by NGO's for there concern for the well being of the people. They brought democracy to the country and held elections regularly, once in 1984 in which the Sandinistas won 63% of the vote.

Democracy existed in the country long before the Sandinistas (or the Somozas) existed. And if the Sandinista government was so successful, why were they were voted out in 1990? They were mostly preferable to the Somoza dictatorship, but hardly a godsend to the people of Nicaragua.

I just said that trade was only at 20% with the soviet bloc before US support for the contras. Soviet support for the Sandinistas is overexaggerated by the US media at best, and never is the context taken into account (they were in a war and desperately in need of help).

LOL. First off, trade is not aid. Trade is when you give something and received something. Nicaragua had very little to give away (except shipping and overfly rights, which is why Russia was so interested in it). Aid is when Soviet weapons, money and Cuban "technical advisors" appear in the country to foster "good will" between the leftist government and the People of the Soviet Union --for free.

Second, exactly what proof do you have one way or the other that Soviet support was "overexaggerated by the US media"? Sorry, but between the New York Times and some random website on the Internet whose affiliation is unknown, I'm going to go with The Times.

Third, you always take "context taken into account" when defending your point of view, but never when looking at the opposite point of view. Why is that?

I was hoping that you would be commited to a fair, honest and unbiased view of the issues involved. But it is becoming clear to me that you are not interested in that. A prime example of this is right here in this paragraph: when the new Sandinista government does "bad things" in order to consolidate control of the country, you say they are "regretable" but "understandable".

But any time the US does "bad things" (and I'm not denying it happens) to further its interests, you not only strongly condemn its actions, you fail to attempt any understanding of WHY and assume the motivations must be of the worst sort.

If the Sandinista government "ran into the arms" of the Soviets as a justifiable reaction to the US "threat", why isn't the US backing of anti-communist insurgencies a justifiable reaction to the communist "threat"? Sounds suspiciously like a double-standard to me.

I don't know why you are doing this. Maybe its because you're trying to convince me that the US simply likes to screw up people's lives all over the world and that it takes pleasure in brutalizing poor and defenseless people. Sorry, but I'm not an idiot. I can read and I can separate bull**** from the truth.

Don't mistake me for someone who believes my government is capable of no wrong and that whatever it does in my name must be good and noble. I wasn't born yestarday. But don't mistake me for someone so simple-minded that I automatically believe the complete opposite of what hasn't been shown as the truth.

You should read up on the governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala... i suggest El Salvador moreso.

What's the point? We can bring up the other Third World battlegrounds in which the US vied with the USSR for control, but that's really beside the point. We'd just end up having the same disagreement there.

For the record, my own attitude towards US foriegn policy in Cold War proxy wars can be summed up best by the Cato Insitute. (LINK) The essay reflects the most fair and balanced view I've seen on the matter.


M

 

[Pistachio]

The core of the Sandinista movement was based on Marxist-Leninist ideological principles. I don't know why this is in question. Look it up. Its true.

Im just saying, how communist is a country that doesn't nationalise its industries? Instead only nationalising 20% of farms (only because they were previously owned by the Samoza dictatorship and its allies) and its bankrupt banks.

The Sandinista were based around meaningful social reform, especialy education, not on collective ownership of property.

But whether the Sandinistas were or were not communist is besides the point. The point I was making was that they were receiving financial, technical and logistical support from the USSR and Cuba before, during and after the overthrow of the government. The Soviet Union supplied more than $500 million in military aid alone from '79 to '86, sending tanks, helicopters, artillery and other sophisticated weapons. Cuba sent over 3,500 military advisors, including pilots that flew the state of the art Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter.

Heres pretty much what i wanted to say "Facing enormous difficulties, they tried, initially with U.S. aid, to stimulate the economy, but the U.S. soon became wary of their left-wing policies and, accusing them of abetting rebels in El Salvador, cut off its aid in 1981 and began to support an anti-Sandinista guerrilla movement. In 1982, Nicaragua signed an aid pact with the USSR.
"http://www.englisch.schule.de/state_of_the_union/group7/project/nicaraga.htm

It is funny that you should use the years 79-86, which doesn't recognise the fact that the aid started in 82, AFTER the US started there illegal war. I think you would agree that the Contras were not good people, and that of course the country had the right of defence (being directly under attack).

The US was concerned that Nicaragua would become another Cuba, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, etc. That is why the Contras were funded ---illegally without support of the US Congress, I may add.

According to Oxfam the only concern that the US had was "the threat of a good example".

That's funny, the Library of Congress pages I read indicated plenty of US involvement. (LINK)

I checked Economic history of the Sandinistas, The Historical Setting of the Sandinistas, 79-90 Military and none of them mentioned the US once, i haven't been through the whole thing, but it shouldn't be this hard to find information on the US backed war that was by far the dominant issue in the 80's.

The Lonely Planet link is a joke. It offers NO reasons for US backing of the Contras and convinently omits Sandinista cooperation with the USSR. It also omits Sandinista crackdowns on political dissidents and its censorship of newspapers that didn't support the movement. It is distinctly biased against the US.

Yes it does, it sais "the threat of a good example". If you want me to extend it further...
"An Oxfam report entitled, The Threat of a Good Example, on the Sandinistas will conclude in 1985: “In Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that government commitment [of meeting the basic needs of the poor majority].”"

But ok if you wish scrap the site, disregard it completely.

Democracy existed in the country long before the Sandinistas (or the Somozas) existed. And if the Sandinista government was so successful, why were they were voted out in 1990? They were mostly preferable to the Somoza dictatorship, but hardly a godsend to the people of Nicaragua.

Democracy existed way before? That was the best part of a century ago. Besides, i said they braught democracy to Nicaragua, if it was there a century prior is irrelevant. Just to make you happy lets say they "re-introduced" democracy.

"Elections are held in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas win with 67% of the vote. International observer teams comment that they are the fairest elections to have been held in Latin America in many years. [Media Monitors, 9/24/2001; Los Angeles Times, 5/25/1998; Keen, 1992; Rosset and Vendermeer, 1986] "

"Elections are held in Nicaragua, and the Sandinistas lose to US-backed Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, after the US spends $9 million on her election campaign including bribing Nicaraguans to vote for her. [Tiscali Encyclopedia, n.d.; Boston Globe, 10/20/1996; Wake-Up Magazine, n.d.] "

LOL. First off, trade is not aid. Trade is when you give something and received something. Nicaragua had very little to give away (except shipping and overfly rights, which is why Russia was so interested in it). Aid is when Soviet weapons, money and Cuban "technical advisors" appear in the country to foster "good will" between the leftist government and the People of the Soviet Union --for free.

I was illustrating the amount of co-operation between Nicaragua and USSR before the support for the Contras started. Point being, there was no significant co-operation, not nearly enough to classify it as part of the Soviet bloc.
You are right trade is not aid, but i cant quote Soviet aid figures at that point, because there was none before the war as far as i have seen. But if you can show me any please do, and show me sources.

Second, exactly what proof do you have one way or the other that Soviet support was "overexaggerated by the US media"? Sorry, but between the New York Times and some random website on the Internet whose affiliation is unknown, I'm going to go with The Times.

I just did, that is pretty much half of what i have said. You just go research on Soviet co-operation with Nicaragua before the contra war started, it isn't exactly what i would call significant, and i have produced a fair bit of evidence of this in my posts.

Third, you always take "context taken into account" when defending your point of view, but never when looking at the opposite point of view. Why is that?

Example?

I was hoping that you would be commited to a fair, honest and unbiased view of the issues involved. But it is becoming clear to me that you are not interested in that. A prime example of this is right here in this paragraph: when the new Sandinista government does "bad things" in order to consolidate control of the country, you say they are "regretable" but "understandable".

It was hardly to "consolidate control" as you put it. The country was under attack by a very well funded and armed contra army, backed by a superpower. Attack the argument and not me thanks.

But any time the US does "bad things" (and I'm not denying it happens) to further its interests, you not only strongly condemn its actions, you fail to attempt any understanding of WHY and assume the motivations must be of the worst sort.

Motive is an irrelevant issue in law. There are exceptions though, like self-defence (the case of the Sandinistas defending against the Contra), but "self-interest" is not an excuse for war. Take any excuse you can for US support of the contras and none would hold up in the International Court of Justice, in fact none of them did, and the US was convicted of "unlwaful use of force" and ordered to pay massive reperations (which it didn't).

Point being, in this case, the US actions were wrong, everyone knows this, the IJC knows this. But the actions of the Sandinistas are nowhere near as bad. This isn't a matter of me holding each up to different standards, there is no hypocricy here, the US actions were far worse than anything the Sandinistas did.

If the Sandinista government "ran into the arms" of the Soviets as a justifiable reaction to the US "threat", why isn't the US backing of anti-communist insurgencies a justifiable reaction to the communist "threat"? Sounds suspiciously like a double-standard to me.

The Sandinista turned to the Soviets as a response to the US led war, a desperate act of defence. Besides you cant possibly think that Nicaragua was a threat to the US. Even worse is saying that it was a "communist threat". If it is communist then it was indeed very moderate. Economic reforms weren't exactly extensive compared to the Samoza reign. Most reforms were social.

Double standard would be if i said "if the US was as small as Nicaragua and under attack by the USSR it has no right to seek arms and alliances to protect itself".

I don't know why you are doing this. Maybe its because you're trying to convince me that the US simply likes to screw up people's lives all over the world and that it takes pleasure in brutalizing poor and defenseless people. Sorry, but I'm not an idiot. I can read and I can separate bull**** from the truth.

Why would anyone go to war for no reason? There is always a reason and it usualy has to do with resources.

"...United States expected the Chamorro government to adopt free-market reforms, privatize industries, restore property to former owners, and drop the international lawsuit that the Sandinista government had brought against the United States for the Contra war." - Library of Congress

We all know how profitable free-market economics is for the US.

Don't mistake me for someone who believes my government is capable of no wrong and that whatever it does in my name must be good and noble. I wasn't born yestarday. But don't mistake me for someone so simple-minded that I automatically believe the complete opposite of what hasn't been shown as the truth.

I never did, im happy that you agree that the Samoza were worse than the Sandinista (the extent to which is arguable). Thats more than most Americans care to admit.

What's the point? We can bring up the other Third World battlegrounds in which the US vied with the USSR for control, but that's really beside the point. We'd just end up having the same disagreement there.

The point is that El Salvadore was ruled by an opressive US backed regime
"In February 1980, Archbishop Romero pleaded with President Carter not to provide the junta with military aid, which, he observed, "will surely increase injustice here and sharpen the repression that has been unleashed against the people's organizations fighting to defend their most fundamental human rights"...."

This is relevant because this is what is supposed to be the source of the war. The Sandinista were accused to aiding Salvadorian rebels, this was a threat to US control.
Now it is arguable if it was the "threat of a good example" or the threat to El Salvador (or weather or not the Sandinista even aiding the rebels), but you get the idea.

For the record, my own attitude towards US foriegn policy in Cold War proxy wars can be summed up best by the Cato Insitute. (LINK) The essay reflects the most fair and balanced view I've seen on the matter.

I read it a little, i didn't like it very much *surprise surprise*. But lets not get into that.

 

[///M-Spec]

We can hash out allll this other stuff in minute. First I have a simple question to ask of you....

Im just saying, how communist is a country that doesn't nationalise its industries? Instead only nationalising 20% of farms (only because they were previously owned by the Samoza dictatorship and its allies) and its bankrupt banks.

The Sandinista were based around meaningful social reform, especialy education, not on collective ownership of property.

Heres pretty much what i wanted to say "Facing enormous difficulties, they tried, initially with U.S. aid, to stimulate the economy, but the U.S. soon became wary of their left-wing policies and, accusing them of abetting rebels in El Salvador, cut off its aid in 1981 and began to support an anti-Sandinista guerrilla movement. In 1982, Nicaragua signed an aid pact with the USSR.
"http://www.englisch.schule.de/state_of_the_union/group7/project/nicaraga.htm

It is funny that you should use the years 79-86, which doesn't recognise the fact that the aid started in 82, AFTER the US started there illegal war. I think you would agree that the Contras were not good people, and that of course the country had the right of defence (being directly under attack).

According to Oxfam the only concern that the US had was "the threat of a good example".

I checked Economic history of the Sandinistas, The Historical Setting of the Sandinistas, 79-90 Military and none of them mentioned the US once, i haven't been through the whole thing, but it shouldn't be this hard to find information on the US backed war that was by far the dominant issue in the 80's.

Yes it does, it sais "the threat of a good example". If you want me to extend it further...
"An Oxfam report entitled, The Threat of a Good Example, on the Sandinistas will conclude in 1985: “In Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that government commitment [of meeting the basic needs of the poor majority].”"

But ok if you wish scrap the site, disregard it completely.

Democracy existed way before? That was the best part of a century ago. Besides, i said they braught democracy to Nicaragua, if it was there a century prior is irrelevant. Just to make you happy lets say they "re-introduced" democracy.

"Elections are held in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas win with 67% of the vote. International observer teams comment that they are the fairest elections to have been held in Latin America in many years. [Media Monitors, 9/24/2001; Los Angeles Times, 5/25/1998; Keen, 1992; Rosset and Vendermeer, 1986] "

"Elections are held in Nicaragua, and the Sandinistas lose to US-backed Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, after the US spends $9 million on her election campaign including bribing Nicaraguans to vote for her. [Tiscali Encyclopedia, n.d.; Boston Globe, 10/20/1996; Wake-Up Magazine, n.d.] "

I was illustrating the amount of co-operation between Nicaragua and USSR before the support for the Contras started. Point being, there was no significant co-operation, not nearly enough to classify it as part of the Soviet bloc.
You are right trade is not aid, but i cant quote Soviet aid figures at that point, because there was none before the war as far as i have seen. But if you can show me any please do, and show me sources.

I just did, that is pretty much half of what i have said. You just go research on Soviet co-operation with Nicaragua before the contra war started, it isn't exactly what i would call significant, and i have produced a fair bit of evidence of this in my posts.

Example?

It was hardly to "consolidate control" as you put it. The country was under attack by a very well funded and armed contra army, backed by a superpower. Attack the argument and not me thanks.

Motive is an irrelevant issue in law. There are exceptions though, like self-defence (the case of the Sandinistas defending against the Contra), but "self-interest" is not an excuse for war. Take any excuse you can for US support of the contras and none would hold up in the International Court of Justice, in fact none of them did, and the US was convicted of "unlwaful use of force" and ordered to pay massive reperations (which it didn't).

Point being, in this case, the US actions were wrong, everyone knows this, the IJC knows this. But the actions of the Sandinistas are nowhere near as bad. This isn't a matter of me holding each up to different standards, there is no hypocricy here, the US actions were far worse than anything the Sandinistas did.

The Sandinista turned to the Soviets as a response to the US led war, a desperate act of defence. Besides you cant possibly think that Nicaragua was a threat to the US. Even worse is saying that it was a "communist threat". If it is communist then it was indeed very moderate. Economic reforms weren't exactly extensive compared to the Samoza reign. Most reforms were social.

Double standard would be if i said "if the US was as small as Nicaragua and under attack by the USSR it has no right to seek arms and alliances to protect itself".

Why would anyone go to war for no reason? There is always a reason and it usualy has to do with resources.

"...United States expected the Chamorro government to adopt free-market reforms, privatize industries, restore property to former owners, and drop the international lawsuit that the Sandinista government had brought against the United States for the Contra war." - Library of Congress

We all know how profitable free-market economics is for the US.

I never did, im happy that you agree that the Samoza were worse than the Sandinista (the extent to which is arguable). Thats more than most Americans care to admit.

The point is that El Salvadore was ruled by an opressive US backed regime
"In February 1980, Archbishop Romero pleaded with President Carter not to provide the junta with military aid, which, he observed, "will surely increase injustice here and sharpen the repression that has been unleashed against the people's organizations fighting to defend their most fundamental human rights"...."

This is relevant because this is what is supposed to be the source of the war. The Sandinista were accused to aiding Salvadorian rebels, this was a threat to US control.
Now it is arguable if it was the "threat of a good example" or the threat to El Salvador (or weather or not the Sandinista even aiding the rebels), but you get the idea.

I read it a little, i didn't like it very much *surprise surprise*. But lets not get into that.

The government of El Salvador in the early 80s was a legal government, regardless of whether or not it was a very good one. Once in power, the Sandinistas provided Soviet sourced weapons and funds to anti-government rebels in El Salvador in a bid to overthrow the conservative government there and back a leftist government.

Is this a moral action? Yes or no?

If you answer YES, then its obvious that you believe it is moral for a person or a group to advocate, support or directly use force of arms to overthrow a undesirable government. In which case I will point out that you are a outspoken opponent of the US invasion of Iraqi, which is morally the equivalant.

If you answer NO, then the Sandinsta government was waging an immoral proxy war against the government of El Salvador, furthering a civil war for their own political gain. In which case, action against the Sandinista government to stop the arms support is justifiable.

Pick one, then we'll go from there.


M

 

[Pistachio]

We can hash out allll this other stuff in minute. First I have a simple question to ask of you....




The government of El Salvador in the early 80s was a legal government, regardless of whether or not it was a very good one. Once in power, the Sandinistas provided Soviet sourced weapons and funds to anti-government rebels in El Salvador in a bid to overthrow the conservative government there and back a leftist government.

Is this a moral action? Yes or no?

If you answer YES, then its obvious that you believe it is moral for a person or a group to advocate, support or directly use force of arms to overthrow a undesirable government. In which case I will point out that you are a outspoken opponent of the US invasion of Iraqi, which is morally the equivalant.

If you answer NO, then the Sandinsta government was waging an immoral proxy war against the government of El Salvador, furthering a civil war for their own political gain. In which case, action against the Sandinista government to stop the arms support is justifiable.

Pick one, then we'll go from there.


M

Not a bad question. But i was stating my support for Nicaragua in its actions, i stated that El Salvador was a ruthless regime though and that it was supported by the US (and it was also arguable how involved Nicaragua really was, but lets not get into that, lets assume for now that Nicaragua was indeed supporting the rebels). I was talking about it more to highlight the double standards of the US, attacking Nicaragua but on the other hand supporting the much worse regime in El Salvador.

As for weather the Sandinistas actions were right or not I don't know. I would need to do a sizable amount of research on the case. But even then IF I did support it there may not be a double standard.
I am not a pacifist, i am a firm believer that while life exists there will be war, and that sometimes war IS necessary. I would also be supportive of military action in Iraq by the global community if it was specifically for the interests of the Iraqi people, that is after non-violent means have been explored.
Now if i were to research on El Salvador and Nicaraguan relations and i found out that the rebel forces had popular support and were genuinely fighting for the intrests of the majority and would construct a government which is democratic in every sense of the word then yes i would say it was morally correct.

International relations is a balance of a states sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. Nobody wants other countries dictating there future but sometimes the people need intervention which would by nature breech state sovereignty.
So I support intervention which is in the whole hearted attempt to bring about democracy, unfortunately this has, without any exception I can think of, not been the case.

 

[ledhed]

When France and spain supported the Colonys against Britian it was for economic and political reasons. Go forward from that time and find a war that had outside support for reasons of establishing a democracy.

 

[Pistachio]

When France and spain supported the Colonys against Britian it was for economic and political reasons. Go forward from that time and find a war that had outside support for reasons of establishing a democracy.

I think for once we agree.

"So I support intervention which is in the whole hearted attempt to bring about democracy, unfortunately this has, without any exception I can think of, not been the case." - Pistachio

There simply isn't any i can think of, but maybe im not thinking hard enough... though i doubt it.