Norseone
Emperor
All's fair in love and war.
The Salvador option...
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I suppose I'd better not ask you why Salvadorians have voted four times in a row to elect the pro-U.S. leader.North King said:
zulu9812
The Newbie Nightmare
rmsharpe said:
that doesn't answer my point: find me a 'leftie' who calls terrorists 'insurgents'
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
rmsharpe said:
Hahaha, that might be the first time I heard someone claim the elections [in Central America] are free, or even imply.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
What you really mean is "the candidate I wanted to win didn't, so the elections were rigged." Taking a page from the old Barbara Boxer book.
rmsharpe said:
If you've ever read even a part of what Manufacturing Consent has to say about this issue, you would know that the attitude you deride is actually the one taken by the American administration, media, and public in the eighties.
Elections in El Salvador in 1982 and 1984, and in Guatemala in 1984-5, were portrayed by Reagan and the American media as free model elections, because America had already intervened there, and an image of America creating and supporting fair elections was necessary. Nicaragua in 1984, however, elected a government that Reagan wanted to overthrow, so that election was clearly a fraudulent one.
In practically every matter relating to the election, the two former countries were portrayed optimistically and positively, while Nicaragua was viewed negatively and with a good deal of criticism. Evidence shows the reverse was true in every case. The media even staged a ballyhoo over an entirely fabricated shipment of Russian MIGs to Nicaragua in order to cast negative light on the relatively unmarred and free election (especially compared with the major problems afflicting the other two countries, which were glossed over or brushed with a pleasant shade of paint).
So, no, actually, it's not the "liberals" who are wrong on this one. Your post can only really be construed as applying to the Reaganites and their apologists. So, congratulations! We thank you for your support!
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
I don't think sneak attacks on enemy combatants is wrong, but killing non-combatants is...
Erik Mesoy said:I thought you said you read the article?
For a Saddam lookalike, I suppose they do. For the heavily supposed beacon of freedom and democracy, no.
I played a Paladin in D&D. Those are the guys with the harshest alignment code, Lawful Good with no deviations allowed. For a Paladin, the ends never justify the means. No killing innocents for a "greater good". No standing back and letting events unfold.
In my opinion, this is the standard the USA claims to hold to, and this is the standard that both the spirits of the Founding Fathers and the rest of the world expect the USA to hold to.
Anything less is nothing more than Nietzche personified.And this is what the US is doing.
Would you say the same thing during World War Two. Sure bombing whole cities to dust and rubble is a horrific thing, but it was the only way to win. Sometimes to beat someone who's playing dirty, you have to play dirty yourself.
This is really precious; a war for WMD that wasen't there, was justified with "we got rid of a tyrant that killed his own population". And how things develop? Well, they start talking about funding people that will kill the very same population. It's right where Saddam left. The one thing good I could see in this war is about to be spoiled.
I'd like to make an ironic remark, but this is just too repulsive to deserve my irony...
Regards
.
I'd like to make an ironic remark, but this is just too repulsive to deserve my irony...
Regards
.
rmsharpe said:
The leftist party has the largest percentage in their parliament, I believe.
At any rate, this is a horrible name for the operation. While the US backed army 'won' in Salvador, the country is still bitterly divided because of the atrocities committed during their civil war. The 'death squads' really did exist, and did some really horrible things, among them killing children for being communist sympathizers. My sister-in-law is from San Salvador, and I have actually been there. They couldn't even take us to certain sections of the city, because they were not safe for Americans. This is where the poor live.
So, next time someone tells you that US policy in central America wasn't exactly a beautiful thing, I suggest you check all the facts before bristling about your nation being criticized. If you are proud of what we did there, you are really a despicable human being. If it was within my power, I would sacrifice a great deal to see certain members of the US government called to account for our actions their. They weren't even bloody communists we were fighting. They were peasants wanting to have equal rights. They just told the American public that with their usual disdain for the truth so that they could continue solidifying American control over the region.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
eyrei said:
And what did we do there?
Akka
Moody old mage.
Crush leftists people because they were all evil godless commies ?
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Akka said:
Hmm.....
Yeah. That sounds about right.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
rmsharpe said:
ROFLMFAO
Isnt it ironic binLaden were considered "Freedom Fighters" back in Soviet occupied Afganistain ??? Yeah DISGUSTING how people could even CONSIDER it
Still If they can form EFFECTIVE milita counter insurgency forces. Deployed in a controlled and intelligent way. ( In all likely hood the US will probabaly stuff this up too and end up backfiring )
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
We supported the government with full knowledge that government backed forces were committing atrocities, and that even their 'army' was executing those suspected of sympathizing with the rebels. We gave them training, weapons, oil, a small airforce, and tactical advice. Had we withheld this aid, there is a distinct possibility that the rebels would have won. As with most popular uprisings, a very large portion of the people supported the rebels, as they sought to end the tyranny of the wealthy. Don't get the impression that this has to do with the lower class being envious of the upper class. Those whose rights the rebels were fighting for were more like medieval peasants in the way they lived. Many still live in that situation...
Akka
Moody old mage.
Of course. That's called "US vision of bringing peace, freedom and democracy to other nations"John HSOG said:
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Hindsite is 20/20, I've seen that arguement before...and its based on the assumpsion that Bin Laden is our enemy now, so why did we join up with him then? This logic is flawed however, because backthen, Bin Laden WASN"T our enemy. Remember the Second World War? America joined forces with freakin Joseph Stalin of all people...why? Because Hitler was our enemy at the time. And look what happened after that?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
So? That happens here in the United States too. You wouldn't go into the poor parts of Detroit or Chicago, would you?eyrei said:
They were peasants wanting to have equal rights.[/QUOTE]
The FMLN was a guerilla movement, they were not peaceful at all until the 1992 peace accords.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
We also sent aid to Stalin. What's your point?FriendlyFire said:
The FMLN was a guerilla movement, they were not peaceful at all until the 1992 peace accords.[/QUOTE]rmsharpe said:
And what exactly is a guerilla movement? Of course they weren't peaceful, they were trying to seize power from a corrupt government that had no intention of helping bring a good life to its people.
And comparing San Salvador to Detroit or Chicago is absolutely absurd. Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
