Chomsky for President.
Johnny Magic
bloody hilarious.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Stan
<vo...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
> Democrats debated last night, Republicans tonight.
>
> Professor Chomsky should run.
>
> Reply only if you agree.
Rumor is that Rumor Nader will run on the Green Party ticket again. This
time seriously.
--Stan
Bud Swanson
everyone asleep.
tim kelley
I don't think Noam would make a good president because it would
corrupt him.
Nor do I think he would have any interest in doing such a thing,
it would make him a tremendous hypocrite.
I would LOVE to see him debating the presidential candidates,
though. That would be absolutely hilarious.
tim kelley
>
> Isn't NC a little on the boring side? Listening to him would put
> everyone asleep.
No listening to patronizing rhetoric and lies puts me to sleep.
Anarchometer
Tom Lykis as Pope.
tim kelley wrote in message <38763D9E...@winkinc.com>...
Todd
to be President. I think that he realizes that the ability of the our
elected officials to affect policy in the United States in the last 50 years
has been marginal at best. Perhaps he should become the president of a
large insurance company.
However, I would vote for him if he did run...hehe.
Billy Chambless
Anarchometer <anarch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:855jfv$15k$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Chomsky for president would make as much sense as
> Tom Lykis as Pope.
Maybe Chomsky should be Pope, then. :)
fl...@best.com
>
> Professor Chomsky should run.
>
> Reply only if you agree.
Why am I not surprised?
Floyd McWilliams
fl...@best.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bakken bockken
"Robert Vogel" <vo...@mail.snet.net> wrote in message
news:853mk7$9...@news1.snet.net...
> Democrats debated last night, Republicans tonight.
>
> Professor Chomsky should run.
>
> Reply only if you agree.
>
>
No way! Geriduggan is a far better choice. He practically taught Chomsky
everything he knows.
James A. Donald
On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:25:18 -0600, tim kelley <tpke...@winkinc.com>
wrote:
> I would LOVE to see him debating the presidential candidates,
> though. That would be absolutely hilarious.
Indeed it would. Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for
about twenty years. The reason is that in any real debate, his lies
and evasive double talk would instantly become obvious. That foggy
double talk instantly collapses the moment some one asks you "well are
you saying X, or are you saying Y". It would instantly become obvious
he was either lying or evading.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/5oY8/WobQ6jLJEeoSs2CdGkagH6oVXlZeF2+pMu
483MqaRBj4AsQTRg4Gys/de65cwpSR8PkHW0Z2zRF
bigdlaura1
> Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for
> about twenty years.
<snip>
He apparently hasn't done a very good job of it. It took me about 30
seconds to search for and find a Chomsky debate online. It's
considerably less than 20 years old.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention_3-12.html
GISP
Constantinople
<85a38n$9bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Listen: James A. Donald has come unstuck in time:
>
>> Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for about twenty
>> years.
>
><snip>
>
>He apparently hasn't done a very good job of it. It took me
>about 30 seconds to search for and find a Chomsky debate online.
>It's considerably less than 20 years old.
>
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention_3-12.html
>
>GISP
That is not a debate. The format is: questions are asked by the
audience and then filtered down to a total of five questions.
Chomsky answers the question, then Woolsey answers the question
(or: Woolsey answers the question, then Chomsky answers the
question), and then the next question is asked. That is not a
debate.
How exactly did you do this search?
--
"The most important function of economics as a discipline is its
didactic role in explaining the principle of spontaneous order."
-- Buchanan
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Listen: James A. Donald has come unstuck in time:
James Donald wrote:
> > Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for
> > about twenty years. The reason is that in any real debate, his lies
> > and evasive double talk would instantly become obvious. That foggy
> > double talk instantly collapses the moment some one asks you "well are
> > you saying X, or are you saying Y". It would instantly become obvious
> > he was either lying or evading.
bigdlaura1:
> He apparently hasn't done a very good job of it. It took me about 30
> seconds to search for and find a Chomsky debate online. It's
> considerably less than 20 years old.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention_3-12.html
If that is a debate, I am the hind leg of a dog.
The complete absence of debate in this "debate" is evidence for my
claim. Chomsky is frightened of cross examination.
For it to be a debate, James Woolsey would have to respond to Chomsky,
and Chomsky would respond to Woolsey.
Instead we get a bunch of very lengthy Chomsky speeches in response to
very short "questions from the audience", "questions" that are not
really questions at all, and have obviously been scripted in advance
by those being "questioned". The "debate" is a collection of pre
prepared speeches to "questions: prepared in advance.
By a debate, I mean a setup where Chomsky is in danger of being cross
examined, a danger that was obviously prohibited in the "debate" to
which you point.
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
MJKMorello
Jim
<fl...@best.com> wrote in message news:85618n$k83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > Professor Chomsky should run.
> >
> > Reply only if you agree.
>
> Before you buy.
If Naom Chomsky ran for president then, by his own beliefs, would be
corrupting himself by participating in this political system...this Amerikan
system at least.
James R. Sines
bigdlaura1
> bigdl...@my-deja.com (bigdlaura1) wrote in
> <85a38n$9bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >Listen: James A. Donald has come unstuck in time:
> >
> >> Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for about twenty
> >> years.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >He apparently hasn't done a very good job of it. It took me
> >about 30 seconds to search for and find a Chomsky debate online.
> >It's considerably less than 20 years old.
> >
> >http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention_3-12.html
> That is not a debate. The format is: questions are asked by the
> audience and then filtered down to a total of five questions.
I guess I shouldn't have snipped Donald's explanation. I'll put it back:
>The reason is that in any real debate, his lies and evasive double
talk would instantly become obvious. That foggy double talk instantly
collapses the moment some one asks you "well are you saying X, or are
you saying Y". It would instantly become obvious he was either lying
or evading.
<end quote>
It's not necessary to give an example of a formal debate to discredit
Donald's claims. Having said that, though, I must admit the link I
provided didn't quite do the job. Try this:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
Also not a formal debate, but I think it'll satisfy you guys.
You can consider my original post retracted and tack my comments to
this one. Either way, Donald is clearly either lying about Chomsky
avoiding debates or about his degree of certainty on the matter.
Despite my questions about his sanity, I'm willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt and expect an apology and retraction.
> Chomsky answers the question, then Woolsey answers the question
> (or: Woolsey answers the question, then Chomsky answers the
> question), and then the next question is asked. That is not a
> debate.
Do you believe that Chomsky has deliberately avoided debating anyone so
as to avoid being exposed as a liar? Do you believe that the burden of
proof for such claims should be on the fellow accused of being a liar
or whatever some online lunatic dreams up?
> How exactly did you do this search?
I searched metacrawler for Chomsky and debate. I saw a link that
referred to a Chomsky/Woolsey debate. It wasn't on that site so I
searched for Chomsky and Woolsey. Bingo. It was a slight exagerration
to say that it took 30 seconds. It was more like a minute.
Why do you ask? Did you also make an effort to check Donald's claim?
GISP
bigdlaura1
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 13:42:48 GMT, bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> > Listen: James A. Donald has come unstuck in time:
> By a debate, I mean a setup where Chomsky is in danger of being cross
> examined, a danger that was obviously prohibited in the "debate" to
> which you point.
See my response to Constantinople.
James A. Donald
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:24:29 GMT, bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> It's not necessary to give an example of a formal debate to discredit
> Donald's claims. Having said that, though, I must admit the link I
> provided didn't quite do the job. Try this:
>
> http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
>
> Also not a formal debate, but I think it'll satisfy you guys.
I stand corrected. That was a debate.
> Do you believe that Chomsky has deliberately avoided debating anyone so
> as to avoid being exposed as a liar?
I believed that. I was wrong. I also add that in that debate, anyone
who has any knowledge about Nicaragua can see that Chomsky was exposed
as a liar.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1qVW6e2wt72OV2CDO9UDYrAeB607Y89sq5/8Xqey
4JGLE52xKZ4/jfTIHaAOtQKYQGC3IV0a5esrkqGuZ
Constantinople
>
>No, Mr. Constantinople, that's BAD touching:
Afraid I don't understand.
>> bigdl...@my-deja.com (bigdlaura1) wrote in
>> <85a38n$9bu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>
>> >Listen: James A. Donald has come unstuck in time:
>> >
>> >> Chomsky has carefully avoided debating anyone for about twenty
>> >> years.
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >He apparently hasn't done a very good job of it. It took me
>> >about 30 seconds to search for and find a Chomsky debate online.
>> >It's considerably less than 20 years old.
>> >
>> >http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention_3-12.html
>
>> That is not a debate. The format is: questions are asked by the
>> audience and then filtered down to a total of five questions.
>
>I guess I shouldn't have snipped Donald's explanation. I'll put it back:
>
>>The reason is that in any real debate, his lies and evasive double
>talk would instantly become obvious. That foggy double talk instantly
>collapses the moment some one asks you "well are you saying X, or are
>you saying Y". It would instantly become obvious he was either lying
>or evading.
>
><end quote>
>
>It's not necessary to give an example of a formal debate to discredit
>Donald's claims. Having said that, though, I must admit the link I
>provided didn't quite do the job. Try this:
>
>http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
You will notice that Silber is about as exasperated as one might
expect, if one assumes that Chomsky produces nothing but
an endless stream of distortion. I do assume that, so I'm not much
surprised by Silber's behavior. Were you surprised by Silber's
behavior? If not, why not?
>Also not a formal debate, but I think it'll satisfy you guys.
From the looks of it, Chomsky had no reason to expect this to
be a debate. Silber explicitly pointed out that Silber's
behavior was unprecedented, when he said, "I'm the first one
that stopped your monopoly on misinformation." (Not well
worded, I think, and Chomsky instantly took advantage of that.
An endless torrent of misinformation is not a monopoly on
misinformation.) Chomsky was blindsided by Silber.
>You can consider my original post retracted and tack my comments to
>this one. Either way, Donald is clearly either lying about Chomsky
>avoiding debates or about his degree of certainty on the matter.
>Despite my questions about his sanity, I'm willing to give him the
>benefit of the doubt and expect an apology and retraction.
I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated your case yet. That Chomsky
unexpectedly found himself blindsided by Silber does not
demonstrate that he did not avoid debates.
>> Chomsky answers the question, then Woolsey answers the question
>> (or: Woolsey answers the question, then Chomsky answers the
>> question), and then the next question is asked. That is not a
>> debate.
>
>Do you believe that Chomsky has deliberately avoided debating anyone so
>as to avoid being exposed as a liar?
Your difficulties make the claim seem increasingly likely to me.
>Do you believe that the burden of
>proof for such claims should be on the fellow accused of being a liar
>or whatever some online lunatic dreams up?
Absolutely not. It is far easier to prove a positive than it is to
prove a negative, when the positive is something like this. To prove
that Chomsky never debated would require tracing every hour of his
life for 20 years. To prove that Chomsky debated would require only
pointing to one debate. To prove that Chomsky debated regularly would
require only pointing to maybe a dozen debates over the span of 20
years, something that should be a trivial exercise given the
extensive Chomsky-fan websites, such as Z magazine's Chomsky
section.
>> How exactly did you do this search?
>
>I searched metacrawler for Chomsky and debate. I saw a link that
>referred to a Chomsky/Woolsey debate. It wasn't on that site so I
>searched for Chomsky and Woolsey. Bingo. It was a slight exagerration
>to say that it took 30 seconds. It was more like a minute.
>
>Why do you ask? Did you also make an effort to check Donald's claim?
Yes. I looked through Z Magazine's Chomsky section.
Michael Carley
>I believed that. I was wrong. I also add that in that debate, anyone
>who has any knowledge about Nicaragua can see that Chomsky was exposed
>as a liar.
For example ...
--
``Permitt not your schollars to ramble abroad, especially lett them not
soe much as peepe into a tavern or tipleing house'' (Provost Loftus).
My return address has the user name reversed.
Constantinople
>> Donald's claims. Having said that, though, I must admit the link I
>> provided didn't quite do the job. Try this:
>>
>> http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
>>
>
Silber implies that Chomsky avoids debates and that Silber is
doing something unusual in answering him directly, thereby
making this program into a debate. He says,
"You engage in a series of fabrications of truth and it's time
that somebody had the opportunity of correcting your historical
misstatements while you're still around..." and then,
"I'm the first one that stopped your monopoly on
misinformation."
Which to me is a couple of very weird things to say, unless
Chomsky had been avoiding debates.
>> Do you believe that Chomsky has deliberately avoided debating anyone so
>> as to avoid being exposed as a liar?
>
>I believed that. I was wrong. I also add that in that debate, anyone
>who has any knowledge about Nicaragua can see that Chomsky was exposed
>as a liar.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 1qVW6e2wt72OV2CDO9UDYrAeB607Y89sq5/8Xqey
> 4JGLE52xKZ4/jfTIHaAOtQKYQGC3IV0a5esrkqGuZ
>
> ------
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
--
B][A
of you actually shooting his points down with a single word of evidence.
some people seem to have a hard-on for simply badmouthing chomsky,
because they can't do anything constructive, except say "oh yeah, but
if you knew what i knew, you'd realize he was a liar" and then you
leave it at that? c'mon. you're certainly not helping "your case" by
doing that.
--B][A
The Open-Source Human Project
http://www.mediahorse.com/ba/
b...@mediahorse.com
James A. Donald
> > who has any knowledge about Nicaragua can see that Chomsky was exposed
> > as a liar.
> For example ...
Silber lists them, and if you look carefully at Chomsky's response,
you will find he implicitly admits them.
Silber lists them as follows
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
Are you going to continue that series of plain falsehoods?
That's a series of falsehoods the likes of which I've never
seen compacted in such a small period of time. The massacres
that have occurred in Nicaragua have been the massacres by the
Sandinistas of the Miskito Indians. The repression there is
massive. It is more serious than anything we have seen in
Central America or in any Latin American country to date. It
is a genuine dictatorship imposed there. And to describe the
leaders of the Contras as being supporters of Somoza is simply
fabrication. Robelo, Cruz, Calero, Chamorro are not Somozistas
and never have been. And when you take the leadership of the
army of the Contras -- some of them were members of the
National Guard -- but then if you are going to object to that,
which would be highly unreasonable because that was an army
that was not simply followers, or Somozistas, it is important
to remember that Modesta Rojas, the vice chairman of the air
force of the Sandinistas, was also a member of the National
Guard and a very large number of members of the National Guard
are the ones who are coordinators of the block committees that
imposed the dictatorship by the Sandinistas.
In Chomsky's reply he simply repeats the assertion that past
membership of the natonal guard is equivalent to being an Somozista.
He simply has no answer to Silber's points.
Chomsky then goes on to assert that the repression was a response to
aggression by the US, thus implicitly admitting the repression that he
initially denied.
Silber then points out.
And let's dispense with the myth somehow that these were
lovely democrats until we drove them into the hands of the
Soviet Union by our opposition. That is a myth. That is a
fabrication of history that Mr. Chomsky knows is false. As a
matter of fact, when the revolution came to an end in July of
1979 the Sandinistas came to Washington, after having pledged
to the Organization of American States that they would hold
free elections. They then received $117 million in loans, they
received credit from the World Bank through the intercession
of the United States. They were very well received and very
well treated. And on September of 193-ah, 1979, they already
began their process of repression. So the notion that we drove
them into the hands of the Communists is utterly false. It's a
fabrication.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
UuHPM0v+RTkAxtK8f1F01yO4j3r8l+Zr8lGY4CHX
46FRXQora7JH9nPI0zzz/ONHik5vGBxa4zwkTf/6r
Michael Carley
>Silber lists them, and if you look carefully at Chomsky's response,
>you will find he implicitly admits them.
>Silber lists them as follows
>http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
> Are you going to continue that series of plain falsehoods?
> That's a series of falsehoods the likes of which I've never
> seen compacted in such a small period of time. The massacres
> that have occurred in Nicaragua have been the massacres by the
> Sandinistas of the Miskito Indians. The repression there is
> massive. It is more serious than anything we have seen in
> Central America or in any Latin American country to date. It
So Silber says that the repression in Nicaragua is more serious than
anything in any other Latin American country, including massacres of
Miskitos (which Chomsky does not deny). Chomsky points out that the
number of Miskitos massacred was approximately 60 or 70 while in El
Salvador, about 60,000 people were killed and in Guatemala, 100,000.
This is an `implicit admission' that Sandinista slaughters were worse
than elsewhere in Latin America?
> is a genuine dictatorship imposed there. And to describe the
> leaders of the Contras as being supporters of Somoza is simply
> fabrication. Robelo, Cruz, Calero, Chamorro are not Somozistas
> and never have been. And when you take the leadership of the
> army of the Contras -- some of them were members of the
> National Guard -- but then if you are going to object to that,
> which would be highly unreasonable because that was an army
> that was not simply followers, or Somozistas, it is important
> to remember that Modesta Rojas, the vice chairman of the air
> force of the Sandinistas, was also a member of the National
> Guard and a very large number of members of the National Guard
> are the ones who are coordinators of the block committees that
> imposed the dictatorship by the Sandinistas.
>In Chomsky's reply he simply repeats the assertion that past
>membership of the natonal guard is equivalent to being an Somozista.
>He simply has no answer to Silber's points.
In Chomsky's reply he restates the fact (do you dispute this?) that
``forty-six out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the
Contras are Somozist officers''.
>Chomsky then goes on to assert that the repression was a response to
>aggression by the US, thus implicitly admitting the repression that he
>initially denied.
He did not deny any repression (see above).
bigdlaura1
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:
<snip>
Congratulations. I'm impressed.
GISP
James A. Donald
> > Chomsky's response, you will find he implicitly admits them.
> >
> > Are you going to continue that series of plain falsehoods?
> > That's a series of falsehoods the likes of which I've never
> > seen compacted in such a small period of time. The
> > massacres that have occurred in Nicaragua have been the
> > massacres by the Sandinistas of the Miskito Indians. The
> > repression there is massive. It is more serious than
> > anything we have seen in Central America or in any Latin
> > American country to date. It
On 11 Jan 2000 11:38:14 -0000, Michael Carley<yelr...@maths.tcd.ie>
wrote:
> So Silber says that the repression in Nicaragua is more serious than
> anything in any other Latin American country, including massacres of
> Miskitos (which Chomsky does not deny). Chomsky points out that the
> number of Miskitos massacred was approximately 60 or 70
My understanding is that it was several thousand, not sixty or
seventy. Recollect that almost the most of the indian population was
rounded up and deported to government camps. Seventy seems remarkably
small for such a drastic operation, and is inconsistent with the usual
experience when settled and concentrated groups of racial minorities
are rounded up and placed in camps by dictatorial regimes.
> while in El Salvador, about 60,000 people were killed and in
> Guatemala, 100,000
Those were wars. The distinguishing feature of communists is that
they murder more people in peace than in war. Killing civilians in
the course of killing guerrillas hiding amongst those civilians is
substantially different from killing civilians in order to impose
collectivisation and to silence opposition.
Opposition political parties were able to function in Gautemala and El
Salvador. They were not able to function in Nicaragua. In that sense
the repression in Nicaragua was more severe.
> > It is a genuine dictatorship imposed there. And to describe
> > the leaders of the Contras as being supporters of Somoza is
> > simply fabrication. Robelo, Cruz, Calero, Chamorro are not
> > Somozistas and never have been. And when you take the
> > leadership of the army of the Contras -- some of them were
> > members of the National Guard -- but then if you are going
> > to object to that, which would be highly unreasonable
> > because that was an army that was not simply followers, or
> > Somozistas, it is important to remember that Modesta Rojas,
> > the vice chairman of the air force of the Sandinistas, was
> > also a member of the National Guard and a very large number
> > of members of the National Guard are the ones who are
> > coordinators of the block committees that imposed the
> > dictatorship by the Sandinistas.
> >
> > In Chomsky's reply he simply repeats the assertion that past
> > membership of the natonal guard is equivalent to being an
> > Somozista. He simply has no answer to Silber's points.
> In Chomsky's reply he restates the fact (do you dispute this?) that
> ``forty-six out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the
> Contras are Somozist officers''.
Of course I dispute this, and if you read what Chomsky said in
context, he does not restate that alleged "fact" but instead retreats,
implictly admitting his first version was a lie. He is equivocating
on the meaning of Somozista. The first meaning of Somozista, the
meaning in his original statement, is someone who supports the
political institutions of Somoza. In his restatement he shifted his
meaning to a quite different meaning, to mean someone who, like most
of the Sandinista military officers, had been a sergeant or some such
in the Nicaraguan national guard.
By radically reinterpreting his previous words to mean something very
different from the lie that Silber attacked, by shifting his position
in this fashion, Chomsky implicitly admitted that his original
position was a lie.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RF/dh6Qu/EmiBSG+sGaZ4zD2RaTBm6nzjrfyWSha
4JCTgtdckj40PJHNJyFgyaJk6s9D1QCaA2JUtJteo
jo...@my-deja.com
> >you will find he implicitly admits them.
>
> > Are you going to continue that series of plain falsehoods?
> > That's a series of falsehoods the likes of which I've never
> > seen compacted in such a small period of time. The massacres
> > that have occurred in Nicaragua have been the massacres by the
> > Sandinistas of the Miskito Indians. The repression there is
> > massive. It is more serious than anything we have seen in
> > Central America or in any Latin American country to date. It
>
> anything in any other Latin American country, including massacres of
> Miskitos (which Chomsky does not deny). Chomsky points out that the
> Salvador, about 60,000 people were killed and in Guatemala, 100,000.
> This is an `implicit admission' that Sandinista slaughters were worse
> than elsewhere in Latin America?
>
In James Donald World, the massacres of 60-70 Miskito Indians in
Nicaragua are "more serious than anything ... in any Latin American
country to date" because they are part of Moscow's Plan to conquer the
World. Those other Miskito's were casualties of the war to fight Soviet
Imperialism in Central America (from which all significant problems in
Latin America in the '70s and '80s flowed). I'm not making any of this
up!
> > is a genuine dictatorship imposed there. And to describe the
> > leaders of the Contras as being supporters of Somoza is simply
> > fabrication. Robelo, Cruz, Calero, Chamorro are not Somozistas
> > and never have been. And when you take the leadership of the
> > army of the Contras -- some of them were members of the
> > National Guard -- but then if you are going to object to that,
> > which would be highly unreasonable because that was an army
> > that was not simply followers, or Somozistas, it is important
> > to remember that Modesta Rojas, the vice chairman of the air
> > force of the Sandinistas, was also a member of the National
> > Guard and a very large number of members of the National Guard
> > are the ones who are coordinators of the block committees that
> > imposed the dictatorship by the Sandinistas.
>
> >In Chomsky's reply he simply repeats the assertion that past
> >membership of the natonal guard is equivalent to being an Somozista.
> >He simply has no answer to Silber's points.
>
> In Chomsky's reply he restates the fact (do you dispute this?) that
> ``forty-six out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the
> Contras are Somozist officers''.
>
It's common knowledge in the Real World that the Nicaraguan terrorist
organization known as Somoza's National Guard was the core around which
the CIA-organized Contras were built. It's also common knowledge that
the MILITARY commanders of the Contras were the significant Nicaraguan
leaders within the Contras and that the political "leaders" mentioned
by Silber were window dressing.
> >Chomsky then goes on to assert that the repression was a response to
> >aggression by the US, thus implicitly admitting the repression that
he
> >initially denied.
>
> He did not deny any repression (see above).
Jon Duncan
jo...@my-deja.com
> Silber implies that Chomsky avoids debates and that Silber is
> doing something unusual in answering him directly, thereby
> making this program into a debate. He says,
>
> "You engage in a series of fabrications of truth and it's time
> that somebody had the opportunity of correcting your historical
> misstatements while you're still around..." and then,
>
> "I'm the first one that stopped your monopoly on
> misinformation."
>
> Which to me is a couple of very weird things to say, unless
> Chomsky had been avoiding debates.
>
Why on Earth would you take what Silber says here seriously when other
things he says in the debate are so OBSCENELY false? Silber calls the
awful treatment of the Miskitos by the Sandinistas more serious than
any other government-sanctioned crimes asnywhere in Latin America until
the time of that debate!
jo...@my-deja.com
bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <388018f6...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Congratulations. I'm impressed.
>
> GISP
>
At what?
Constantinople
Your statement is false. Here is what Silber said:
"The repression there is massive. It is more serious than
anything we have seen in Central America or in any Latin American
country to date. It is a genuine dictatorship imposed there."
Silber is talking about the repression in Nicaragua as a whole,
not about the treatment of the Miskitos specifically. He mentions
massacres but "it" refers to "repression" not "massacres" (which
is plural, and therefore, if Silber were referring to
"massacres", he would have used the words "they are" rather than
"it is").
Either you did not read the page, or you are lying, or you have
trouble reading.
bigdlaura1
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <85cq2d$52o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bigdlaura1 says...
> >
> >No, Mr. Constantinople, that's BAD touching:
>
> Afraid I don't understand.
Just a silly intro. I'll stop.
> You will notice that Silber is about as exasperated as one might
> expect, if one assumes that Chomsky produces nothing but
> an endless stream of distortion. I do assume that, so I'm not much
> surprised by Silber's behavior. Were you surprised by Silber's
> behavior? If not, why not?
Not at all. Silber is the former (?) president of Boston U. He was
extremely controversial and had all sorts of problems with unions,
student protesters and other things that right-wing university
presidents have problems with. Chomsky was one of 500 Massachusetts
professors to sign a petition calling for his dismissal several years
before this exchange.
> From the looks of it, Chomsky had no reason to expect this to
> be a debate.
He had every reason to expect John Silber to disagree with everything
he said and to be very open about it.
<big snip>
> Absolutely not. It is far easier to prove a positive than it is to
> prove a negative, when the positive is something like this. To prove
> that Chomsky never debated would require tracing every hour of his
> life for 20 years. To prove that Chomsky debated would require only
> pointing to one debate. To prove that Chomsky debated regularly would
> require only pointing to maybe a dozen debates over the span of 20
> years, something that should be a trivial exercise given the
> extensive Chomsky-fan websites, such as Z magazine's Chomsky
> section.
There are more. How many do you think it will take before the claim
that Chomsky avoids debates so as not to be exposed as a liar will be
discredited?
<snip>
> >Why do you ask? Did you also make an effort to check Donald's claim?
>
> Yes. I looked through Z Magazine's Chomsky section.
Much better. That's where I got the Silber thing.
Michael Carley
>On 11 Jan 2000 11:38:14 -0000, Michael Carley<yelr...@maths.tcd.ie>
>wrote:
>> So Silber says that the repression in Nicaragua is more serious than
>> anything in any other Latin American country, including massacres of
>> Miskitos (which Chomsky does not deny). Chomsky points out that the
>> number of Miskitos massacred was approximately 60 or 70
>My understanding is that it was several thousand, not sixty or
>seventy. Recollect that almost the most of the indian population was
>rounded up and deported to government camps. Seventy seems remarkably
>small for such a drastic operation, and is inconsistent with the usual
>experience when settled and concentrated groups of racial minorities
>are rounded up and placed in camps by dictatorial regimes.
Maybe it was several thousand. Chomsky says (it may or may not be
true) that it was 60 or 70. If he says it was 60 or 70 then he is
certainly not implicitly admitting that the Nicaraguan repression was
worse than in other countries.
>> while in El Salvador, about 60,000 people were killed and in
>> Guatemala, 100,000
>Those were wars. The distinguishing feature of communists is that
>they murder more people in peace than in war. Killing civilians in
>the course of killing guerrillas hiding amongst those civilians is
>substantially different from killing civilians in order to impose
>collectivisation and to silence opposition.
So when were civilians killed in order to impose collectivisation?
Which opponents were killed?
>Opposition political parties were able to function in Gautemala and El
>Salvador. They were not able to function in Nicaragua. In that sense
>the repression in Nicaragua was more severe.
So Oscar Romero was not political opposition to the El Salvador
regime?
>> In Chomsky's reply he restates the fact (do you dispute this?) that
>> ``forty-six out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the
>> Contras are Somozist officers''.
>Of course I dispute this, and if you read what Chomsky said in
>context, he does not restate that alleged "fact" but instead retreats,
>implictly admitting his first version was a lie. He is equivocating
>on the meaning of Somozista. The first meaning of Somozista, the
>meaning in his original statement, is someone who supports the
>political institutions of Somoza. In his restatement he shifted his
>meaning to a quite different meaning, to mean someone who, like most
>of the Sandinista military officers, had been a sergeant or some such
>in the Nicaraguan national guard.
He did not mention any sergeant in the Nicaraguan national guard, he
said `officers'.
Constantinople
>
>In article <85d3lc$31...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
> Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <85cq2d$52o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bigdlaura1 says...
>> >
>> >No, Mr. Constantinople, that's BAD touching:
>>
>> Afraid I don't understand.
>
>Just a silly intro. I'll stop.
>
>> You will notice that Silber is about as exasperated as one might
>> expect, if one assumes that Chomsky produces nothing but
>> an endless stream of distortion. I do assume that, so I'm not much
>> surprised by Silber's behavior. Were you surprised by Silber's
>> behavior? If not, why not?
>
>Not at all. Silber is the former (?) president of Boston U. He was
>extremely controversial and had all sorts of problems with unions,
>student protesters and other things that right-wing university
>presidents have problems with. Chomsky was one of 500 Massachusetts
>professors to sign a petition calling for his dismissal several years
>before this exchange.
>
>> From the looks of it, Chomsky had no reason to expect this to
>> be a debate.
>
>He had every reason to expect John Silber to disagree with everything
>he said and to be very open about it.
I don't know anything about Silber and your information is suggestive,
so you may be right.
><big snip>
>
>> Absolutely not. It is far easier to prove a positive than it is to
>> prove a negative, when the positive is something like this. To prove
>> that Chomsky never debated would require tracing every hour of his
>> life for 20 years. To prove that Chomsky debated would require only
>> pointing to one debate. To prove that Chomsky debated regularly would
>> require only pointing to maybe a dozen debates over the span of 20
>> years, something that should be a trivial exercise given the
>> extensive Chomsky-fan websites, such as Z magazine's Chomsky
>> section.
>
>There are more. How many do you think it will take before the claim
>that Chomsky avoids debates so as not to be exposed as a liar will be
>discredited?
I don't know why you ask. Just list what you have, if you like, or
don't. Then if they're good examples and I refuse to concede the
point you can use that to show everyone just how unreasonable I am.
Robert Vogel
Check out www.soaw.org
William Fason
> My understanding is that it was several thousand, not sixty or
> seventy.
Perhaps someone will run to the library and check up on this point. The
arrogant Sandinista treatment of the indigenous peoples on the Atlantic
Coast was truly appalling. Genocide, however, it was not.
>Recollect that almost the most of the indian population was
> rounded up and deported to government camps.
The FSLN government eventually admitted its wrongful acts, reversed course,
and let them resettle their homelands.
> > while in El Salvador, about 60,000 people were killed and in
> > Guatemala, 100,000
>
> Those were wars.
This was officially-sanctioned terror directed by the US-backed security
forces in those countries against civilians. This policy of targeting
dissidents, labor leaders, journalists, opposition politicians, etc., is
abundantly documented. In El Savlador in 1980 the police and military were
murdering about 1000 civilians per month in gruesome ways. People who had
been shot at point blank range, people whose eyes had been gouged out. The
repression carried out by the security forces in El Salvador and Guatemala
in the 1980's was far worse than that carried out by the Sandinistas.
> The distinguishing feature of communists is that
> they murder more people in peace than in war. Killing civilians in
> the course of killing guerrillas hiding amongst those civilians is
Let's see, the brutal murders of priests in their seminary by US-trained
Salvadoran soldiers, the rape and murder of nuns on the highway by
Salvadoran security forces. Surely you are not referring to this?
> substantially different from killing civilians in order to impose
> collectivisation and to silence opposition.
You might want to go do some more reading on the type of dirty war waged by
the US-supported security forces in Latin America. In El Salvador in the
earley 1980's, the security forces silenced the opposition by murdering
journalists and attacking the physical plant of opposition enwspapers.
While you are at it, you might want to read up on CIA direction of the
Honduran Battalion 308.
> Opposition political parties were able to function in Guatemala and El
> Salvador.
When? Which period of history are you referring to? During the 1980's? Or
after peace accords were signed?
>They were not able to function in Nicaragua. In that sense
> the repression in Nicaragua was more severe.
Wrong, Mr. Donald. Read the report on the Nicaraguan elections published by
the Institute for Latin American Studies at the University of Texas at
Austin. A distinguished team of Latin Americanists observed the 1984
elections and wrote a report. Also, read the reports of numerous European
governments and private organizations which monitored the elections. Seven
political parties from across the political spectrum participated. In fact,
a Nicaraguan had a wider range of candidates for president than we did that
year.
> > In Chomsky's reply he restates the fact (do you dispute this?) that
> > ``forty-six out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the
> > Contras are Somozist officers''.
>
> Of course I dispute this, and if you read what Chomsky said in
> context, he does not restate that alleged "fact" but instead retreats,
> implicitly admitting his first version was a lie.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html
Halfway down the page.
Chomsky: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six out of the
forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras are Somozist officers.
You can find that in the Congressional report. You can find that from Edgar
Chamorro who is the CIA appointed spokesman. That's exactly what I said and
it's exactly true."
I'm sorry, where does he backtrack?
He is equivocating
> on the meaning of Somozista. The first meaning of Somozista, the
> meaning in his original statement, is someone who supports the
> political institutions of Somoza. In his restatement he shifted his
> meaning to a quite different meaning, to mean someone who, like most
> of the Sandinista military officers, had been a sergeant or some such
> in the Nicaraguan national guard.
Where exactly does he supposedly equivocate? Which statement precisely?
>
> By radically reinterpreting his previous words to mean something very
> different from the lie that Silber attacked, by shifting his position
> in this fashion, Chomsky implicitly admitted that his original
> position was a lie.
Where exactly does he do this?
William Fason
>Here is what Silber said:
>
> "The repression there is massive. It is more serious than
> anything we have seen in Central America or in any Latin American
> country to date."
> Silber is talking about the repression in Nicaragua as a whole,
> not about the treatment of the Miskitos specifically.
Again, demonstrably false.
bigdlaura1
Constantinople <constan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <85i93j$5ut$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bigdlaura1 says...
<snip>
> >> From the looks of it, Chomsky had no reason to expect this to
> >> be a debate.
> >
> >He had every reason to expect John Silber to disagree with everything
> >he said and to be very open about it.
>
> I don't know anything about Silber and your information is suggestive,
> so you may be right.
Try a search on him. He was probably the single most controversial
university president in the country in the 70s so I'd imagine there
should be some information about him on the web.
> >> Absolutely not. It is far easier to prove a positive than it is to
> >> prove a negative, when the positive is something like this. To
prove
> >> that Chomsky never debated would require tracing every hour of his
> >> life for 20 years. To prove that Chomsky debated would require only
> >> pointing to one debate. To prove that Chomsky debated regularly
would
> >> require only pointing to maybe a dozen debates over the span of 20
> >> years, something that should be a trivial exercise given the
> >> extensive Chomsky-fan websites, such as Z magazine's Chomsky
> >> section.
> >
> >There are more. How many do you think it will take before the claim
> >that Chomsky avoids debates so as not to be exposed as a liar will be
> >discredited?
>
> I don't know why you ask. Just list what you have, if you like, or
> don't.
The thing is I don't have a list or anything. I did a search. When the
results weren't satisfactory I did another one. I'm confident that I
can find more with more searches, but I'm not too interested in it
unless I know a time will come when I've demonstrated my point. Here's
an account of an interview of Chomsky by Andrew Marr:
http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/sept96marrchomsky.htm
The account is obviously biased, but is another example of Chomsky
agreeing to publicly talk to someone hostile to his ideas.
> Then if they're good examples and I refuse to concede the
> point you can use that to show everyone just how unreasonable I am.
I'm not at war with you or anything. I saw someone make a point that I
thought I could refute. That got me pulled into a conversation. I'm
just trying to answer questions that you ask and learn what I can from
you.
Michael S. Lorrey
>
> Democrats debated last night, Republicans tonight.
>
> Professor Chomsky should run.
>
> Reply only if you agree.
Chomsky is a pathetic whiner. No new ideas, still crying the 'running
dog capitalist' anti-corporate crap.
Mike
James A. Donald
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:58:41 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The FSLN government eventually admitted its wrongful acts, reversed course,
> and let them resettle their homelands.
After Reagan armed the indians, and after the Soviet Union started to
visibly weaken, THEN the Sandinistas reversed course, in what seemed
like a partially successful effort to split the Contras.
>This was officially-sanctioned terror directed by the US-backed security
>forces in [Guatemala and El Salvador] against civilians
True, but the war was fought to defend an economic order that the vast
majority of Guatemalans and Salvadoreans supported then and support
now, voted for then and vote for now. The war was fought against a
Soviet sponsored force attempting to repay its paymasters by imposing
an alien economic system in the service of the Soviet union against
the clear will of the vast majority. Those armies and governments
were fighting an act of external proxy aggression by the Soviet Union,
a war of aggression that collapsed when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The governments and armies of El Salvador and Guatemala committed
numerous of dire crimes, doubtless with US support, but they were
fighting for Guatemala and El Salvador, and for the people of
Guatemala and El Salvador. They were on the right side and you lot
were on the wrong side. Whatever evil deeds the armies and
governments of those countries committed from time to time, they were
on the side of the Guatemalans and Salvadoreans, and Chomsky was on
the wrong side, the side of the Soviet Union, the side of imperialism,
conquest, and aggression, the side of those who sought to conquer,
rob, and enslave the people of Latin America, conquer them as a
stepping stone for doing the same to the whole world.
Because Latin American elites suffered from conflicts and power
struggles, it was easy for the Soviet Union to fan these quarrels into
wars by providing money and weapons to any faction willing to go forth
and kill. This aggressive Soviet meddling caused wars and destroyed
democracy in Latin America, and anyone who supported this Soviet
aggression, as Chomsky supported it, is an enemy of freedom, and a
supporter of tyranny.
> > Opposition political parties were able to function in Guatemala and El
> > Salvador.
> When? Which period of history are you referring to? During the 1980's? Or
> after peace accords were signed?
Throughout the entire period, parties with policies similar to the
policies of today's mainstream Guatemalan and Salvadorean parties
continued to function in Guatemala and El Salvador, though elections
were often rigged or indefinitely postponed. In addition, people were
able to report on the human rights violations of these governments,
and did so throughout the entire period, while they were not able to
report on the human rights violations in Nicaragua.
> Read the report on the Nicaraguan elections published by
> the Institute for Latin American Studies at the University of Texas at
> Austin. A distinguished team of Latin Americanists observed the 1984
> elections and wrote a report.
No matter how many nice things you can find people saying about the
1984 elections, they were a classic communist election.
No opposition.
All candidates in the 1984 elections were chosen by, and creations of,
the Sandinistas. According to Chomsky and company this was the fault
of the opposition for refusing to participate, but considering the
spate of violent death that followed the election, they surely had
some good reasons for not competing.
The people who overthrew Somoza, the people who nominally ruled
Nicaragua until the Sandinistas overthrew them, the people who WON the
first honest election in Nicaragua, did not run in that election.
Neither was anyone else who had any good claim to have been mainstream
politician, labor organizer, or anything similar, before the
Sandanista coup.
> Halfway down the page.
> Chomsky: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six out of the
> forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras are Somozist officers.
Thus Chomsky shifted the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of
Somoza" to the unusual meaning of "former officer in the nicaraguan
army. By forcing this strange meanings on the word, he implicitly
admitted his initial claim, ridiculed by Silber, had been a lie.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
SlhTv7Hnw7K2eTOod44VAsdCZPYyBGe3elyQfQ88
4wHdU0FOU+dCB7VGahSmgLiaPCyEHsucK2gqezrZA
Robert Vogel
Hi James,
You definitely need to look carefully at :
http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html
Then again at
Then see
http://www.consortiumnews.com/
especially
http://www.consortiumnews.com/061899a.html
William Fason
> >This was officially-sanctioned terror directed by the US-backed security
> >forces in [Guatemala and El Salvador] against civilians
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:>
> True, but the war was fought to defend an economic order that the vast
> majority of Guatemalans and Salvadoreans supported then and support
> now, voted for then and vote for now.
In 1954 the US sponsored an overthrow of a constitutionally-elected
government of Guatemala. The US supported the successive dictatorships. I
suggest you read, "Inevitable Revolutions" by Walter LeFeber. The turbulence
in Central America this century was not caused by the USSR.
The demonstration elections in El Salvador were described by Herman and
Brodhead in "Demonstration Elections." Plexiglass ballot boxes, no secret
ballot, the opposition parties were kept off the ballot and prevented from
campaigning by force. Peaceful dissent was answered by gov. terror.
> The governments and armies of El Salvador and Guatemala committed
> numerous of dire crimes, doubtless with US support, but they were
> fighting for Guatemala and El Salvador, and for the people of
> Guatemala and El Salvador.
Simply repeating this does not make it so.
>They were on the right side and you lot were on the wrong side.
You have no idea whatsoever of which "side" I was on, unless you think any
critic of US intervention was ipso facto a Cuban-Soviet agent.
> aggression, as Chomsky supported it, is an enemy of freedom, and a
> supporter of tyranny.
Where exactly did Chomsky support Soviet aggression in Central America?
> Throughout the entire period, parties with policies similar to the
> policies of today's mainstream Guatemalan and Salvadorean parties
> continued to function in Guatemala and El Salvador, though elections
> were often rigged or indefinitely postponed.
Opposition political figures were routinely killed by US-backed security
forces. have you ever heard of La Cronica and El Independiente? Two
Salvadoran newspapers shut down in the 1980's by the Salvadoran government.
In one case the army attacked the physical plant; in the other they killed
the editor and some reporters. Sound like an atmosphere conducive to free
and fair elections?
> In addition, people were
> able to report on the human rights violations of these governments,
> and did so throughout the entire period, while they were not able to
> report on the human rights violations in Nicaragua.
Demonstrably false. Human rights groups in El Salvador and Guatemala were
targeted by the governments, their members were frequently murdered.
Can you name any human rights workers in Nicaragua under the FSLN who was
murdered by the gov?
There was harassment of opposition political figures in Nicaragua during the
Contra War, but the repression paled in comparison with that next door in
the US-backed death squad democracies.
>
> > Read the report on the Nicaraguan elections published by
> > the Institute for Latin American Studies at the University of Texas at
> > Austin. A distinguished team of Latin Americanists observed the 1984
> > elections and wrote a report.
>
> No matter how many nice things you can find people saying about the
> 1984 elections, they were a classic communist election.
So you have not read it, have you? Have you read any reports by observers
of the 1984 elections? Besides the US State Department, of course.
> No opposition.
Demonstrably false. There were three parties to the left of the FSLN, and
three parties to the right.
> All candidates in the 1984 elections were chosen by, and creations of,
> the Sandinistas.
Can you even name those political parties? Name their leaders? I bet you
can't.
>According to Chomsky and company this was the fault
> of the opposition for refusing to participate,
You have misunderstood Chomasky's analysis. You have not even read his
analysis, have you?
There were three parties which refused to participate.
> but considering the
> spate of violent death that followed the election, they surely had
> some good reasons for not competing.
Which violent deaths in particular? The country was at war, the contras and
their CIA scoutmasters continued to kill, the Nicaraguan gov fought for its
survival.
> The people who overthrew Somoza,
The US installed and supported the Somoza dynasty. And then in the 1980's
all of a sudden the US is oh so concerned about democracy in Nicaragua?
>the people who nominally ruled
> Nicaragua until the Sandinistas overthrew them,
In 1979 there was indeed a power struggle in Nicaragua. The US-supported
elements lost out. Big deal.
>the people who WON the
> first honest election in Nicaragua,
The first honest election in Nicaragua was held in 1984, and repeated in
1990 and 1996 according to their constitution.
>did not run in that election.
Care to name them? I bet you're not really all that knowledgeable of
Central American history.
> Neither was anyone else who had any good claim to have been mainstream
> politician, labor organizer, or anything similar, before the
> Sandanista coup.
And your evidence for this?
> > Halfway down the page.
> > Chomsky: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six out of
the
> > forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras are Somozist
officers.
>
> Thus Chomsky shifted the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of
> Somoza" to the unusual meaning of "former officer in the nicaraguan
> army. By forcing this strange meanings on the word, he implicitly
> admitted his initial claim, ridiculed by Silber, had been a lie.
Let's review every use of the word "Somozist" by Chomsky.
Chomsky: "(A)lmost its entire top military command is Somozist officers."
Chomsky again: "I stated again that the military leadership of the Contras
is almost entirely drawn from the top, from the Somozist National Guard."
Chomsky again: "Forty-six out of forty-eight of the top military commanders
according to Edgar Chamorro -- this is the top military commander..."
Chomsky again: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six out of
the forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras are Somozist
officers. You can find that in the Congressional report. You can find that
from Edgar Chamorro who is the CIA appointed spokesman. That's exactly what
I said and it's exactly true."
So Mr. Donald I repeat my question to you: where exactly does Chomsky shift
the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual meaning
of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"? Simply repeating the your
accusation will not suffice.
James A. Donald
Fason wrote:
> > > The FSLN government eventually admitted its wrongful acts,
> > > reversed course, and let them resettle their homelands
James Donald replied:
> > After Reagan armed the indians, and after the Soviet Union started to
> > visibly weaken, THEN the Sandinistas reversed course, in what seemed
> > like a partially successful effort to split the Contras. <
Hofstad314:
> Care to supply dates? I think the bloodiest part of the conflict
> with the Miskito Indians was in the early 80's, before the Soviet
> Union appeared to visibly weaken.
Evidently visibility differs. Many saw the Soviet union as on its
last legs in the Brezhnev years. Others did not see anything
happening and got a big shock when the wall fell. Even when Gorbachev
started brown nosing Reagan, some few had imaginatively interpreted it
as Reagan brown nosing Gorbachev, and were totally blindsided.
To the best of my recollection, the Sandinistas capitulated to most of
the Indian demands, and started giving the Indian contra leaders
luxury trips to the beaches of Cuba, sometime shortly after Gorbachev
took power and promptly started to de-escalate Soviet aggression
against the world.
So I would say that the fiercest fighting occurred when the Soviet
Union was visibly weakening, indeed the fierceness of the fighting
against Soviet proxies throughout the world was exactly what made the
weakening visible and exactly what led to first Brezhnev and then
Chernenko losing power within the Soviet Union.
And I also say that to the best of my recollection the concessions
were made shortly after the failure of Chernenko and his replacement
by Gorbachev should have made that weakening visible to anyone.
> > True, but the war was fought to defend an [existing] economic
> > order that the vast majority of Guatemalans and Salvadoreans
> > supported then and support now, voted for then and vote for now.
> > The war was fought against a Soviet sponsored force attempting to
> > repay its paymasters by imposing an alien economic system in the
> > service of the Soviet union against the clear will of the vast
> > majority. Those armies and governments were fighting an act of
> > external proxy aggression by the Soviet Union, a war of aggression
> > that collapsed when the Soviet Union collapsed.<
> A bit oversimplified. I doubt that the average Salvadoran or
> Guatemalan wanted his government to massacre union organizers, human
> rights workers, priests, archbishops, etc...
The soviet sponsored forces were not fighting the war against human
rights violations. It is far from clear which side murdered the most
union organizers. They were fighting the war to impose soviet style
socialism, to subjugate a hostile populace. Whenever the masses in
Guatemala and El Salvador got a chance to vote between something close
to socialism or the existing social order, they voted for war and
something close to the existing social order.
> --if so, it would be another sad example of how a combination of
> propaganda and terror can make ordinary people support crimes
> against humanity.
Opposing totalitarian terror is not "supporting crimes against
humanity". You are like those nazi scum who argue that failure to
vote nazi is equivalent to supporting the bombing of Dresden and
Hiroshima.
Opposing totalitarian terror in Latin America is not the same thing as
supporting the various crimes that were committed during the numerous
wars fought to prevent Latin America from coming under Soviet
domination.
> > they were fighting for Guatemala and El Salvador, and for the
> > people of Guatemala and El Salvador. They were on the right side
> > and you lot were on the wrong side. Whatever evil deeds the
> > armies and governments of those countries committed from time to
> > time, they were on the side of the Guatemalans and Salvadoreans,
> > and Chomsky was on the wrong side, the side of the Soviet Union,
> > the side of imperialism, conquest, and aggression, the side of
> > those who sought to conquer, rob, and enslave the people of Latin
> > America, conquer them as a stepping stone for doing the same to
> > the whole world.
Hofstad314:
> In other words, when the Guatemalan army destroyed hundreds of
> Mayan villages and massacred on the order of 100,000 people during
> the 80's (and perhaps 200,000 since the 60's) , they were, um,
> fighting for the Guatemalans.
Similarly, when the US wrongfully bombed Dresden, they were
nonetheless fighting to make Germans free, but with the important
difference that the Germans had voted for Hitler, and the Guatemalans
had voted against communism.
The defeat of communism did make Guatemalans free. The victory of
communism would have unleashed a terror vastly greater than the one
that you so indignantly protest about.
James A. Donald:
> > Because Latin American elites suffered from conflicts and power
> > struggles, it was easy for the Soviet Union to fan these quarrels
> > into wars by providing money and weapons to any faction willing to
> > go forth and kill. This aggressive Soviet meddling caused wars
> > and destroyed democracy in Latin America, and anyone who supported
> > this Soviet aggression, as Chomsky supported it, is an enemy of
> > freedom, and a supporter of tyranny.<
Hofstad314:
> Um, you just said that a military which may have wiped out 200,000
> Guatemalans was fighting for Guatemala, so it's a little hard to
> know what your definition of freedom and tyranny might be.
Despite its many crimes, the victory of that military and the defeat
of the Soviet Union led immediately to a free and peaceful democratic
society. The victory of your side would have led to the same
totalitarian terror and collosal mass murder we saw in Vietnam and
Cambodia.
James Donald wrote:
> > All candidates in the 1984 [Nicaraguan] elections were chosen by,
> > and creations of, the Sandinistas. According to Chomsky and
> > company this was the fault of the opposition for refusing to
> > participate, but considering the spate of violent death that
> > followed the election, they surely had some good reasons for not
> > competing.
> What's your source on that?
My source that there was no opposition in 1984 "elections"? Similar
to my source that the sky is blue. The only question open to debate
is why did they not compete (evil CIA influence or Sandinista menace)
not whether they competed.
You can argue that the CIA was to blame for the elections being a
farce, and proclaim the Sandinistas as innocent as the driven snow,
but no honest person can deny the elections were a farce. The only
issue in dispute is where to point the blame.
> > > Chomsky: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six
> > > out of the forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras
> > > are Somozist officers.
James Donald replied:
> > Thus Chomsky shifted the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of
> > Somoza" to the unusual meaning of "former officer in the
> > nicaraguan army. By forcing this strange meanings on the word, he
> > implicitly admitted his initial claim, ridiculed by Silber, had
> > been a lie.
> How exactly is it a lie?
Because, as Silber points out, and Chomsky conspicuously fails to deny
<http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> most of the
contra leadership were opponents of Somoza.
The contra revolutions started when the original junta that overthrew
Somoza were pushed out of power by the Sandinista, and thus the contra
leadership appear to have been primarily supporters of the original
anti Somoza junta, and in some cases members of the original junta of
thirty nine.
> Being in Somoza's army is a pretty good indication of
> being a Somoza supporter
As Silber points out, and Chomsky does not deny, it is not a good
indication.
> --it was Somoza's army that murdered thousands of
> Nicaraguans in Somoza's attempt to hang onto power in the late 70's.
No, it was not Somoza's army that committed those crimes, it was
Somoza's secret police, which also formed the core of the Sandinista
regime.
In particular, the revolution was provoked by the murder of Chamorro,
Violettas husband, by the secret police, to the indignation of the
army.
The war between the Contras and the Sandinistas was to a substantial
extent a war between former members of Somoza's army and former
members of Somoza's secret police. The Junta that overthrew the
Somoza was to a substantial extent an army junta overthrowing police
authority, and the Sandinista coup was a restoration of police
authority over army authority with Soviet aid.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
y/RKY/Fflu44wUCezLGSGO63cSqkQ17RLdwLg6oT
488PjXgWyUxMNGZPswQIWGaUjayCjzhNySLBDTKsX
William Fason
news:3881ad2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > > All candidates in the 1984 [Nicaraguan] elections were chosen by,
> > > and creations of, the Sandinistas. According to Chomsky and
> > > company this was the fault of the opposition for refusing to
> > > participate, but considering the spate of violent death that
> > > followed the election, they surely had some good reasons for not
> > > competing.
> > What's your source on that?
> My source that there was no opposition in 1984 "elections"? Similar
> to my source that the sky is blue.
Now we are getting to the root of the problem. Were you in Nicaragua in
1984? Did you personally observe the elections? Clearly not. You have no
personal knowledge of those elelctions.
The question is quite specific. What is the basis for your claim that there
were no opposition parties participating in the 1984 elections in Nicaragua?
I have read the ILAS report. I personally knew several of the scholars, such
as Professor of Economis Mike Conroy at UT-Austin, who observed the
elections.
What exactly have you read? US State Department reports? Surely you read
something. It appears that you are quite ignorant of the basis facts.
>The only question open to debate
> is why did they not compete (evil CIA influence or Sandinista menace)
> not whether they competed.
You can't even name who "they" are, can you.
> You can argue that the CIA was to blame for the elections being a
> farce,
The elections were not a farce.
>and proclaim the Sandinistas as innocent as the driven snow,
Strawman. I have never made such a claim.
> but no honest person can deny the elections were a farce.
Really? How is that? How many ballots were cast? How many parties ran? What
were the leaders names? What were their platforms?
You make allegations without evidence.
> > How exactly is it a lie?
> Because, as Silber points out, and Chomsky conspicuously fails to deny
> <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> most of the
> contra leadership were opponents of Somoza.
So all you can do is merely repeat what Silber says? Can YOU, James A.
Donald, point to a statement in the transcript where Chomsky shifts the
meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual meaning
of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"?
As for your claim, it is wrong. Chomsky unequivocally states that 46 of the
top 48 military commanders of the contra army were officers in Somoza's
National Guard. Which part of this statement do you not understand?
> The contra revolutions started when the original junta that overthrew
> Somoza were pushed out of power by the Sandinista, and thus the contra
> leadership appear to have been primarily supporters of the original
> anti Somoza junta, and in some cases members of the original junta of
> thirty nine.
You really have not studied the history of the contra movement, have you?
Read "Contra Terror" by Reed Brody. Read "With the Contras" by Christopher
Dickey, a journalist for Newsweek.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:32:33 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The question is quite specific. What is the basis for your claim
> that there were no opposition parties participating in the 1984
> elections in Nicaragua?
The complete absence of any leaders, parties, or political figures
that anyone had heard of before the election, other than the
Sandinistas.
In particular, and most importantly, the complete absence of Violeta
Chamorro, the leader of the revolt against Somoza, and the leader of
the opposition to the Sandinistas, and the equally complete absence of
her allies or associates.
The absence of any members of the junta that overthrew Somoza, other,
of course, than the Sandinista members.
Indeed, the total absence of the people that overthrew Somoza, and the
total absence of the people who were later elected when Nicaragua
finally had a genuinely fair and free election. (Other, of course,
than the Sandinistas.)
In short, the communist election of 1984 in Nicaragua was an
absolutely typical communist election. Anyone who suggests otherwise
is simply lying.
The only question open to debate is whether it was the Sandinista's
fault or the CIA's fault that they gave an election and nobody came,
whether it would have been a fair and free election if only the evil
CIA had not somehow restrained all the Sandinista's opponents from
running.
> You can't even name who "they" are, can you.
"They" are Violeta Chamorro and her coalition.
"They" are any members of the inner or outer Junta who overthrew
Somoza, the Junta led by Violeta Chamorro, other than the members of
that Junta who eventually proclaimed themselves Sandinistas.
"They" are any mainstream union leaders who led unions before the
Sandinistas smashed the union movement.
James A. Donald:
> > Because, as Silber points out, and Chomsky conspicuously fails to deny
> > <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> most of the
> > contra leadership were opponents of Somoza.
William Fason:
> So all you can do is merely repeat what Silber says? Can YOU, James A.
> Donald, point to a statement in the transcript where Chomsky shifts the
> meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual meaning
> of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"?
In his initial statement, Chomsky clearly claims that that the Contras
were led by "Somozista" in the sense of someone who supports Somoza.
Silber denies this, gives examples, and points out that the army was a
major part of the coalition that overthrew Somoza.
In his response, repeatedly quoted, Chomsky points out that most of
the Contras had been officers in the Nicaraguan army. This is not a
relevant response, except he is changing the meaning of the word
"Somozista". For it to be a relevant response he would have to answer
Silber's points about the allegiance of the army, which of course he
cannot do.
James A. Donald:
> > The contra revolutions started when the original junta that overthrew
> > Somoza were pushed out of power by the Sandinista, and thus the contra
> > leadership appear to have been primarily supporters of the original
> > anti Somoza junta, and in some cases members of the original junta of
> > thirty nine.
William Fason:
> You really have not studied the history of the contra movement, have you?
Your response indicates you have no idea who overthrew Somoza. That
you no only have no idea of the events that launched the Contra
revolution against the Sandinistas, you also have no idea of what
happened in the revolution that Violeta Chamorro led, the revolution
that the Contras subsequently stole with Soviet assistance in a
conscious imitation of the Bolsheviks stealing the Russian revolution
with the Kaiser's assistance
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
QKL0pei8YsCQU6azYQrR2qCq+Dy7QItLnZjGtOk3
4G3Ajl/wRXmw2B5kql4JEW32C/5pleVQlaf6577M2
William Fason
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > The question is quite specific. What is the basis for your claim
> > that there were no opposition parties participating in the 1984
> > elections in Nicaragua?
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> The complete absence of any leaders, parties, or political figures
> that anyone had heard of before the election, other than the
> Sandinistas.
Well, maybe you had never heard of them, but Latin American scholars and
people who followed events there had.
Besides, you never answered my question. That's OK, you demonstrate my
point anyway. Admit that you there is no basis for claiming that no
opposition parties participated.
> In particular, and most importantly, the complete absence of Violeta
> Chamorro
How did Violetta Chamorro's absence from the 1984 Nicaraguan elections
render those elections illegitimate?
> the leader of the revolt against Somoza,
The leader of the revolt against Somoza? How did she lead the revolt?
>and the leader of
> the opposition to the Sandinistas,
Again, care to elaborate? In what sense did she "lead" the opposition to
the FSLN? Did she finance it? Direct it? Lead commando teams to blow up
schools and health clinics with the contras?
>and the equally complete absence of
> her allies or associates.
How is that the measure of the legitimacy of elections?
A reasonable person would view the legitimacy of elections according to
objective criteria. Are the ballots secret? How easy is it for political
parties to gain a spot on the balance? (In the US, for example, it is
incredibly difficult for a third arty to obtain a place on the ballot.) Are
opposition political parties free to campaign? Are the voting stations
manned by both the ruling party and other opposition parties? How are the
ballots counted? And there are other criteria. One could take these
criteria and apply them to any elections held anywhere in the world,
regardless of whether the elections were held in El Salvador, Nicaragua,
France, or upper Slobonia.
Your claim that elections are a sham unless a certain editor of a newspaper
participates is, well, stupid.
> In short, the communist election of 1984 in Nicaragua was an
> absolutely typical communist election. Anyone who suggests otherwise
> is simply lying.
So ladies and gentlemen, on one hand we have the team of distinguished Latin
Americanist scholars under the auspices of the Institute of Latin American
Studies based at the University of Texas at Austin. People like Professor
Mike Conroy who have traveled extensively through Central America, been
published, etc. They visited the country, actually investigated, and then
wrote a report. Among their conclusions was that while there were some
problems with the election held during the exigencies of war, the elections
were essentially free and fair. And delegations from the Irish Parliament,
the British Parliament, delegations from all over Latin America and Europe.
On the other hand we have James A. Donald, who can cite no studies,
articles, or anything in particular. He doesn't need any. He can just look
out his window at the clear blue sky and just "know" that the 1984 elections
in Nicaragua were bogus. Must be nice to enjoy that kind of divine
revelation.
> The only question open to debate is whether it was the Sandinista's
> fault or the CIA's fault that they gave an election and nobody came,
> whether it would have been a fair and free election if only the evil
> CIA had not somehow restrained all the Sandinista's opponents from
> running.
We have already established that you have personal knowledge of the
elections. Have you read anything about the elections? The National Review
sure didn't cover the elections it. "Don't confuse us with the facts."
> James A. Donald:
> > > Because, as Silber points out, and Chomsky conspicuously fails to deny
> > > <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> most of the
> > > contra leadership were opponents of Somoza.
>
> William Fason:
> > So all you can do is merely repeat what Silber says? Can YOU, James A.
> > Donald, point to a statement in the transcript where Chomsky shifts the
> > meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual meaning
> > of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"?
James A. Donald:
> In his initial statement, Chomsky clearly claims that that the Contras
> were led by "Somozista" in the sense of someone who supports Somoza.
Here is his initial statement.
Chomsky: "...its entire top military command is Somozist officers. Its
military achievements so far consist of a long and horrifying series of very
well documented torture, mutilation and atrocities, and essentially nothing
else."
In every reference to the contra leadership, Chomsky describes them as
former officers in Somoza's national guard. 46 out of 48 of them, to be
quite exact.
> In his response,
Which response? Can you even identity the paragraph?
>repeatedly quoted, Chomsky points out that most of
> the Contras had been officers in the Nicaraguan army.
He does this repeatedly start to finish. That's because it is true even
according to Edgar Chamarro and the US government's own documents.
> This is not a
> relevant response, except he is changing the meaning of the word
> "Somozista". For it to be a relevant response he would have to answer
> Silber's points about the allegiance of the army, which of course he
> cannot do.
Well, can you at least cut and paste the passage in which Chomsky allegedly
(in your words) "claims that that the Contras were led by 'Somozista' in the
sense of someone who supports Somoza"? Am I asking too much here?
In every reference to the contra leadership, he clearly refers to former
officers of Somoza's National Guard, who presumably were people who
supported Somoza.
> Your response indicates you have no idea who overthrew Somoza.
A popular uprising which the US opposed. Started early in the 1960's with
some sporadic activity by Ortega and a handful of others, began really to
boil in the 1970's. The US tried to the last moment to stifle it, tried to
at least preserve the hated National Guard that it had created at its School
of the Americas aka School of the Assassins. At the very end the US
secretly flew some of the National Guardsmen out of the country on airplanes
marked with the red cross, a warcrime.
In 1986 my trip to Central America carried me through Nicaragua for two
weeks. I interviewed opposition figures, including the editor of newspaper
that had just been shut down. Some people loved the Sandinsitas, other
hated them. People expressed their opinions without fear. The libraries
carried publications from all over the world, including The New York Times,
The Miami Herald, Time, Newsweek, etc. The bookstores carried copies of
Milton Friedman's books translated into Spanish.
I guess that might not compare to just looking out one's window and just
divining the truth.
William Fason
> > In 1954 the US sponsored an overthrow of a constitutionally-elected
> > government of Guatemala.
>
> Arbenz was appointed by the previous dictator, and his election was
> even more outrageously rigged than was usual in Guatemala, a
> coronation, rather than an election.
What history did you read on this? Can you point us towards something?
I remember reading Zimmerman's "The CIA in Guatemala" and Kinzer's "Bitter
Fruit."
> > The US supported the successive dictatorships.
>
> This language implies the US supported dictatorships against
> democracy. On the contrary, the US supported normal dictatorships
> against two main categories:
>
> 1. Against totalitarians who made no secret of their intention to
> murder a large portion of the population.
>
> 2. Against anyone who made a pact with the Soviets (as Arbenz did)
> for arms and money to use against his internal opponents.
When did Arbenze "make a pact" with the SU?
> However none of the various people who sought and obtained Soviet arms
> and money, even the non totalitarians, can plausibly claim to be
> noticeably more democratic or noticeably less murderous than their US
> aligned enemies, and one can plausibly claim that many of them were a
> great deal more murderous. In particular, Arbenz tortured hundreds of
> student radicals to death,
Really? Care to name names? Places? Dates? Things that can actually be
verified?
> James A. Donald:
> > > In addition, people were
> > > able to report on the human rights violations of these governments,
> > > and did so throughout the entire period, while they were not able to
> > > report on the human rights violations in Nicaragua.
>
> William Fason:
> > Demonstrably false. Human rights groups in El Salvador and Guatemala
were
> > targeted by the governments, their members were frequently murdered.
>
> Human rights groups in Nicaragua completely ceased to function.
>In
> particular the human rights groups that had done so much to alert the
> world to crimes of Somoza were completely silenced and disbanded by
> the Sandinistas.
What what its name? Who were its leaders?
> > Can you name any human rights workers in Nicaragua under the FSLN who
was
> > murdered by the gov?
>
> No, I cannot.
Can you direct us to somebody who can? Maybe you have a book on your shelf?
Perhaps in Shirley Christian's book titled "Revolution in the Family"? I
remember it being especially critical and also well-documented. (It was for
sale in Nicaragua.) Have you at least read any books that agree with your
general point of view?
>Can you name any human rights worker in Stalin's Russia
> that was murdered by the government?
I sure can. Solomon Mikhoels was murdered. Achille Grigorevich Leniton, Ilya
Zeolkovich Serman, and Rulf Alexandrovna were sent to gulags for 25 years.
Of course, that doesn't have anything to with measuring as best we can the
repression under the Sandinsta government. I've read numerous reports by
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International about the subject.
> There probably were none murdered, because there were no human rights
> workers in Stalin's Russia, and after 1985, none in Nicaragua.
What are you talikng about? I was there in 1986, I talked with them. I
prolly still have my stamped passport to prove it.
You just do not have command of the facts here. You do not have the
intellectual highground in this discussion, Mr. Donald.
> > There were three parties to the left of the FSLN, [in the 1984
Nicaraguan elections] and
> > three parties to the right.
>
> None of whom had ever been heard of before, or were ever seen again
> after.
Demonstrably false. Four years later some of their representatives came
through the US on a tour. I spoke with them.
> As I said, a classic communist election.
As I pointed out, you are arguing from ignorance.
> > Can you even name those political parties? Name their leaders? I bet
you
> > can't.
>
> No one can name those parties. They had no real existence. They were
> mere fleeting shadows. They came into existence just before the
> election, and ceased to exist immediately after the election.
Wrong. They particiapted in the 1984 elections, and then again in the 1990
elections. While I can't name them this instant (its been 16 years), I know
where I can get my hands on the facts. You OTOH do not appear at all
interested in examing anything which contradicts your own firmly held
opinions. "Don't confuse me with the facts."
> But everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, and who
> was conspicuously absent from those elections, as was her party.
She never had any intention, announced or otherwise, of running in those
elections! She did not file until 1990.
Besides, how does the participation of Chamorro affect the legitimacy of the
electoral process in Nicaragua?
That would be liek my claiming that the current Clinton administration is
illegitimate becasue Fred Finkelstein did not participate in 1996. Who is
Fred Finkelstein? Well, he's my neighbor. He thought about running, but then
didn't cause he says the system is rigged here.
> Everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, who won the
> first honest election after the overthrow of Somoza, and who was
> curiously absent from the communist elections of 1984.
So you are claiming here that Violeta Chamorro wanted to run in the 1984
elections? And that somehow she was prevented?
> Why then were the 1984 results so wildly different from all of the
> others,
That is a good question. It calls for speculation by someone with more
knowledge of actual events than you.
In 1984 the FSLN still maintained a popular majority. Three-fourths of the
eligible population voted. (More than in the US that year.) Two-thirds of
them voted for the FSLN. By 1990, after six more years of war, the country
was awfully tired. They knew that if they returned the FSLN to power, it
would mean more war. Enough decided it just was not worth it. That would
be one possible reason. To even begin to answer the question intelligently,
of course, you'd have to conduct some serious polls in that country, not
just look out your window at the clear blue sky.
> > So Mr. Donald I repeat my question to you: where exactly does Chomsky
shift
> > the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual
meaning
> > of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"? Simply repeating the your
> > accusation will not suffice.
> You, like Chomsky, are a barefaced liar who cheerfully repeats his
> lies for anyone to see. Anyone who bothers to read the URL
> <http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> can see that
> Chomsky is shifting the meaning of Somozista from "Somoza supporter"
> to "Former member of the Nicaraguan army.", which, as Silber
> vehemently points out, is not at all the same thing.
So you can't produce the actual line where he does this? You can even cut
and paste to prove my alleged dishonesty? That's just beyond your abilities?
Or is it that you don't really understand what you read and can only parrot
what Silber says? Isn't it true that Chomsky never uses the term "Somoza
supporter" or "Former member of the Nicaraguan army" in that debate with
Silber? And yet you put these terms in quotes......
Let's try this again.
Chomsky: "Let me repeat. Let's go back to the facts: forty-six out of the
forty-eight of top military commanders of the Contras are Somozist
officers."
OK, now then Mr. James, do you know if this statement by Chomsky is a true
statement or a false statement?
William Fason
of these events, and you cite no sources. Show one scintilla of evidence
that Violeta Chamorro ever even contemplated running for the presidency in
1984. Have you spoken to her?
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>She was the opposition.
Ludicrous.
>She was the woman who overthrew Somoza.
Single-handidly. Quite a feat. You have a very active imagination. When
pressed for facts and sources, you simply repeat yourself. When pressed
further, you resort to ad hominem. You resemble many of those ignorant
Marxist-Leninist punks over in alt.political.socialism.trostsky in your
style.
My criteria for judging the criteria of elections are objective. An
election is judged by the process, not the outcome.
Your only criteria for deciding whether an election is valid or not is
whether your favoriate candidate ran. You apply your own ignorant,
subjective, politically-driven criteria.
> Since there were no uninvited people on the ballot, and since a spate
> of violent death followed the elections, I draw the obvious
> conclusion.
And pray tell us about this "spate of violent deaths" which followed the
election? Or will you retreat into ignroant, facts-be-damned attitude?
Simply repeat mindless platitudes.
> Strange how I never see any full quotes from this report. You did not
> even name this report, which makes it a little hard to find.
As I pointed out, it was 15 years ago, I don't have a photographic memory,
and I can't just look out the window at the clear blue sky and "know" the
answer to all life's questions.
Let's see. It was put out by the Institute for Latin American Studies at
UT-Austin in 1984. One of the authors was Mike Conroy. Think that's enough
clues, Sherlock, for you to track down? You clearly do not want to examine
anything that contradicts what you already "know."
> However my persistant
> inability to find this unnamed report or any extensive word for word
> quote from it leads me to an alternate hypothesis.
Your inability? And you have actually made attempts?
Here is one of the authors. Mike Conroy (con...@mundo.eco.utexas.edu)
Finding his email address took me an entire 30 seconds. Now I know I do
this professionally, but surely that wasn't oo terribly difficult, was it?
One place you might be able to find it is at UT-LANIC, the Latin American
Network Information Center. Gopher to lanic.utexas.edu
> I presume this mysterious much cited but unquoted report is "Electoral
> Process in Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences" As far
> as I can tell, only Chomsky interprets it as saying what he claims it
> says.
I can't remember if that is the title or not. Have you the courage to
actually read it yourself?
James A. Donald
William Fason:
> > > This was officially-sanctioned terror directed by the US-backed security
> > > forces in [Guatemala and El Salvador] against civilians
>
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:>
>> True, but the war was fought to defend an economic order that the vast
>> majority of Guatemalans and Salvadoreans supported then and support
>> now, voted for then and vote for now.
William Fason:
> In 1954 the US sponsored an overthrow of a constitutionally-elected
> government of Guatemala.
He was not democratically elected.
Arbenz was appointed by the previous dictator, and his election was
even more outrageously rigged than was usual in Guatemala, a
coronation, rather than an election.
The most recent honest election before the recent civil war, perhaps
the only honest election before the recent civil war, was that of
Fuentes, a man who was more pro capitalist than the dictators that ran
things during the civil war, more pro capitalist than the junta that
immediately preceded him, and of course a great deal more pro
capitalist than Arbenz.
Thus when they had a chance to vote, then as now, the Guatemalans
voted for a social order as or more capitalist than the existing
social order. The economic policies of Fuentes were very similar to
the economic polices of most of the parties currently contending for
votes in Guatemala, and were dissimilar to the policies of Arbenz, and
of course, radically dissimilar to the policies of soviet sponsored
guerilla army.
> The US supported the successive dictatorships.
This language implies the US supported dictatorships against
democracy. On the contrary, the US supported normal dictatorships
against two main categories:
1. Against totalitarians who made no secret of their intention to
murder a large portion of the population.
2. Against anyone who made a pact with the Soviets (as Arbenz did)
for arms and money to use against his internal opponents.
However none of the various people who sought and obtained Soviet arms
and money, even the non totalitarians, can plausibly claim to be
noticeably more democratic or noticeably less murderous than their US
aligned enemies, and one can plausibly claim that many of them were a
great deal more murderous. In particular, Arbenz tortured hundreds of
student radicals to death, while Castillo Armas, the man who overthrew
him with US assistance, did not murder anyone. In particular Armas
refrained from executing Arbenz, which turned out to be a fatal
mistake, a mistake I certainly would not have made had I been in
Armas' shoes.
James A. Donald:
> > The governments and armies of El Salvador and Guatemala committed
> > numerous of dire crimes, doubtless with US support, but they were
> > fighting for Guatemala and El Salvador, and for the people of
> > Guatemala and El Salvador.
William Fason:
> Simply repeating this does not make it so.
Election results then and now do make it so.
The people of Guatemala, Salvador, and Nicaragua did not want the
regime that Soviet proxies continually attempted to impose on them.
They voted accordingly then, and they vote accordingly now.
James A. Donald:
> > In addition, people were
> > able to report on the human rights violations of these governments,
> > and did so throughout the entire period, while they were not able to
> > report on the human rights violations in Nicaragua.
William Fason:
> Demonstrably false. Human rights groups in El Salvador and Guatemala were
> targeted by the governments, their members were frequently murdered.
Human rights groups in Nicaragua completely ceased to function. In
particular the human rights groups that had done so much to alert the
world to crimes of Somoza were completely silenced and disbanded by
the Sandinistas.
> Can you name any human rights workers in Nicaragua under the FSLN who was
> murdered by the gov?
No, I cannot. Can you name any human rights worker in Stalin's Russia
that was murdered by the government?
There probably were none murdered, because there were no human rights
workers in Stalin's Russia, and after 1985, none in Nicaragua.
> There were three parties to the left of the FSLN, [in the 1984 Nicaraguan elections] and
> three parties to the right.
None of whom had ever been heard of before, or were ever seen again
after.
As I said, a classic communist election.
> > All candidates in the 1984 elections were chosen by, and creations of,
> > the Sandinistas.
> Can you even name those political parties? Name their leaders? I bet you
> can't.
No one can name those parties. They had no real existence. They were
mere fleeting shadows. They came into existence just before the
election, and ceased to exist immediately after the election.
But everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, and who
was conspicuously absent from those elections, as was her party.
Everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, who won the
first honest election after the overthrow of Somoza, and who was
curiously absent from the communist elections of 1984.
> In 1979 there was indeed a power struggle in Nicaragua. The US-supported
> elements lost out. Big deal.
The people who plausibly claimed to represent the great majority of
the electorate, the people who sought to hold immediate elections,
lost out to those who planned dictatorship. The people in whose name
the revolt against Somoza had been made lost out to faceless
conspirators with Soviet money and Soviet arms, conspirators that no
one had heard of until they took power.
> > the people who WON the
> > first honest election in Nicaragua,
> The first honest election in Nicaragua was held in 1984, and repeated in
> 1990 and 1996 according to their constitution.
Why then were the 1984 results so wildly different from all of the
others, particularly as US support for the contras ended with the
Soviet Union's abandonment of its interference in latin America?
> So Mr. Donald I repeat my question to you: where exactly does Chomsky shift
> the meaning of "Somozista" from "Supporter of Somoza" to the unusual meaning
> of "former officer in the nicaraguan army"? Simply repeating the your
> accusation will not suffice.
You, like Chomsky, are a barefaced liar who cheerfully repeats his
lies for anyone to see. Anyone who bothers to read the URL
<http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/86-silber.html> can see that
Chomsky is shifting the meaning of Somozista from "Somoza supporter"
to "Former member of the Nicaraguan army.", which, as Silber
vehemently points out, is not at all the same thing.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ipw7zzCw7aueRwztJ2FXzbNtru8+eXqkiOKt5YHM
4PvBxme5Rm/uCpEoqyuhJtFKaF8+/COHozpn+qyEJ
James A. Donald
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:40:58 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote:
> Your response indicates you have no idea who overthrew Somoza. That
> you no only have no idea of the events that launched the Contra
> revolution against the Sandinistas, you also have no idea of what
> happened in the revolution that Violeta Chamorro led, the revolution
> that the Contras subsequently stole with Soviet assistance in a
> conscious imitation of the Bolsheviks stealing the Russian
> revolution with the Kaiser's assistance
Oops, that should of course have read:
the revolution that the Sandinistas subsequently stole with Soviet
assistance in a conscious imitation of the Bolsheviks stealing the
Russian revolution with the Kaiser's assistance
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
LlsYuszUK/ULlPspbZmUDvudvYkcdVK1zg1TDrFe
41sypLBQKvttvd1n3pM39jnS56j1Rev5cZ00Tv1v1
James A. Donald
William Fason:
> > > The question is quite specific. What is the basis for your claim
> > > that there were no opposition parties participating in the 1984
> > > elections in Nicaragua?
James A. Donald:
> > The complete absence of any leaders, parties, or political figures
> > that anyone had heard of before the election, other than the
> > Sandinistas.
William Fason:
> Well, maybe you had never heard of them, but Latin American scholars and
> people who followed events there had.
Liar.
None of these people had ever been heard of before the election, and
few of them after. Nobody cared or noticed them or remembered them.
James A. Donald:
> > In particular, and most importantly, the complete absence of Violeta
> > Chamorro
William Fason:
> How did Violetta Chamorro's absence from the 1984 Nicaraguan elections
> render those elections illegitimate?
She was the opposition. She was the woman who overthrew Somoza. All
or almost all opposition to the Sandinistas had gathered under her
banner. Because she had the starring role in the overthrow of Somoza,
she was the last opponent of the Sandinistas to be silenced.
Chamorro was the touchstone of their claim to be revolutionaries.
With no Chamorro, how could they claim her mantle of the overthrow of
Somoza? With no Chamorro, how could they claim to be revolutionaries?
So if they held an election without Chamorro, it was no election.
So if she, the incarnation of the revolution against Somoza, and also
the incarnation of the opposition to Sandinista dictatorship, was not
running in those elections, it is absurd to claim that there was any
opposition permitted.
The only question then is: why was she absent? A CIA conspiracy to
discredit the elections, or Sandinista terror?
The dramatic difference between the 1984 results, and the results of
all other Nicaraguan elections, the results of all plausibly free and
fair elections in central America, answers that question.
> > the leader of the revolt against Somoza,
> The leader of the revolt against Somoza? How did she lead the revolt?
She was the one who summoned the masses to revolt, she was the front
man, the spokesmember, for the five person junta that overthrew
Somoza, the junta member who stands in front on the balcony before the
cheering crowd while the other four junta members stand a little bit
behind, plotting in the shadows as secondary junta members tend to do.
> > and the leader of
> > the opposition to the Sandinistas,
> Again, care to elaborate? In what sense did she "lead" the opposition to
> the FSLN?
When the opposition were permitted to organize, they formally gathered
behind her in a broad left-right coalition party, all mainstream
politicians, all notable Sandinista opponents, all mainstream union
leaders, and formally elected her their head. When they were not
permitted to organize, she spoke for them, and they spoke in her
support in so far as they dared. Armed resistance against the
Sandinistas was done in her name.
> > and the equally complete absence of
> > her allies or associates.
> How is that the measure of the legitimacy of elections?
Spoken like a true totalitarian. An election without an opposition is
so much more democratic. That way the masses are not oppressed by any
of this disturbing evil capitalistic talk. :-)
> A reasonable person would view the legitimacy of elections according to
> objective criteria. Are the ballots secret?
Who cares who knows how you vote, if only government blessed
candidates are on the ballot?
> How easy is it for political
> parties to gain a spot on the balance?
At that point people start disagreeing. Indeed it was easy to get on
the ballot. The question however was: Was it easy to get on the
ballot, and the opposition was just stubbornly refusing because they
were being bribed to refrain by CIA gold, or was it easy to get on the
ballot but suicidal to be on the ballot if you were not invited by the
Sandinistas.
Since there were no uninvited people on the ballot, and since a spate
of violent death followed the elections, I draw the obvious
conclusion.
> Your claim that elections are a sham unless a certain editor of a newspaper
> participates is, well, stupid.
She was not a "certain editor". She was a certain political leader,
the leader of the revolution that overthrew Somoza, the foremost
member of the five man junta.
And yes, the conspicuous absence of the countries most prominent
political leader both casts doubt on the election in itself, and also
implies the absence of every other political leader.
> > In short, the communist election of 1984 in Nicaragua was an
> > absolutely typical communist election. Anyone who suggests otherwise
> > is simply lying.
> So ladies and gentlemen, on one hand we have the team of distinguished Latin
> Americanist scholars under the auspices of the Institute of Latin American
> Studies based at the University of Texas at Austin. People like Professor
> Mike Conroy who have traveled extensively through Central America, been
> published, etc. They visited the country, actually investigated, and then
> wrote a report. Among their conclusions was that while there were some
> problems with the election held during the exigencies of war, the elections
> were essentially free and fair.
Strange how I never see any full quotes from this report. You did not
even name this report, which makes it a little hard to find. If it
actually said what you claim, I would point out that letterhead paper
is cheap, and there are plently of fans of Stalin among the commie
professoriat in the US, and that we have a similar report from the
professoriat praising the Stalin show trials. However my persistant
inability to find this unnamed report or any extensive word for word
quote from it leads me to an alternate hypothesis.
I presume this mysterious much cited but unquoted report is "Electoral
Process in Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences" As far
as I can tell, only Chomsky interprets it as saying what he claims it
says.
If it does say what Chomsky alone says it says, then manifestly it is
wrong, as has been proven by subsequent events.
However, since I have never seen Chomsky accurately cite anything
other than statements by oficial spokesmen for murderous regimes, I am
inclined to suspect that this much cited but never-quoted-in-full
report is similar to every other Chomsky citation I have bothered to
dig up.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PxKY+A0c8IwDvcwbaPV6/5D1z8fMPWCdd2MNFlkQ
4E3xqXiuReSi6Pxmta4zAfK932kFAyH6+E4Mg4MDm
James A. Donald
William Fason:
> > > In 1954 the US sponsored an overthrow of a
> > > constitutionally-elected government of Guatemala.
James A. Donald:
> > He was not democratically elected. Arbenz was appointed by the
> > previous dictator, and his election was even more outrageously
> > rigged than was usual in Guatemala, a coronation, rather than an
> > election.
William Fason:
> What history did you read on this?
Page 279 of "Guatemala" quotes Fuentes, shortly to become one of the
very few democratically elected leaders of Nicaragua. When Fuentes,
wanted to say how disgustingly rigged the first 1957 elections were,
how outrageously unconstitutional, how flagrantly undemocratic they
were, when he wanted to urge the voters to resist, oppose, and defy
the government that rigged those elections, he said:
"What is the difference between 1950 and 1957"
1950 you will recall, is the election where Arbenz was elected. Thus
it would seem that to the voters of Guatemala, or at least to those
voters to which Fuentes hoped to appeal, Arbenz was a symbol of
contempt for democracy.
In 1957 the government initially held rigged elections, resulting in
widespread rioting, and then, because of the rioting, they held the
elections all over again, producing a very different outcome. These
second elections seem to be generally acknowledged as free and fair.
In the genuinely fair and free elections held in 1957, the
presidential candidates that came first and second both claimed the
mantle of the murdered General Aramas, the man who overthrew Arbenz,
which suggests that he was viewed as a martyr by a not insignificant
number of Guatemalans.
William Fason:
> > > The US supported the successive dictatorships.
James A. Donald:
> > This language implies the US supported dictatorships against
> > democracy. On the contrary, the US supported normal dictatorships
> > against two main categories:
> >
> > 1. Against totalitarians who made no secret of their intention to
> > murder a large portion of the population.
> >
> > 2. Against anyone who made a pact with the Soviets (as Arbenz
> > did) for arms and money to use against his internal opponents.
William Fason:
> When did Arbenze "make a pact" with the SU?
No one knows, but a large shipment of Czechoslovak arms arrived for
him personally a little while after he banned anti communist protests.
Similarly no one has any explicit evidence of a similar pact between
Aramas and the US, but everyone, including yourself, confidently
refers to his revolt against Arbenz as "US sponsored" on the basis of
the considerable circumstantial evidence. We have equally good
circumstantial evidence that Arbenz's power grab was Soviet sponsored.
James A. Donald:
> > However none of the various people who sought and obtained Soviet
> > arms and money, even the non totalitarians, can plausibly claim to
> > be noticeably more democratic or noticeably less murderous than
> > their US aligned enemies, and one can plausibly claim that many of
> > them were a great deal more murderous. In particular, Arbenz
> > tortured hundreds of student radicals to death,
William Fason:
> Really? Care to name names? Places? Dates? Things that can actually
> be verified?
Any history will tell you that Arbenz dismissed the supreme court, had
parliament vote him absolute power, suspended all constitutional
rights, and imprisoned the parliament.
According to Mario Rosenthal "Guatemala", page 253, describing the
suppression of the opposition by Arbenz
"the horrors suffered were only revealed when, after Arbenz
resigned, hundreds of bodies were exhumed from common graves
in different parts of the country. These were found to have
been brutally mutilated. The government of Castillo Armas
published extensive details, with photographs of the outrages.
Statements by known persons were made public. The
Anti-Communist University Students League published a book
one year after the terror, entitled, "The Calvary of Guatemala".
It is filled with photographs and signed statements documenting
over one hundred cases of inhuman torture. The outrages range
from flogging to such acts as the rack, castration, and a
diabolic modern refinement consisting of a rectal mechanism
that inflicted electric shocks on internal organs. The forty
pages of photographs document mutilated bodies, with hands,
feet, and heads crushed. Most of the victims were later
identified. It is estimated that no less than 500 persons
were thus cruelly murdered by Arbenz police.
I cannot find any sources for torture other than Rosenthal, who is
biased, but I have plenty of sources for the dismissal of the supreme
court, the arrest of parliament, and the suppression of protests, and
when a dictator does those things, he also usually does the things
described by Rosenthal, thus Rosenthal's accusations are believable.
James A. Donald:
> > In particular the human rights groups that had done so much to
> > alert the world to crimes of Somoza were completely silenced and
> > disbanded by the Sandinistas.
William Fason:
> What what its name? Who were its leaders?
Its name was the CPDH, which stands for a bunch of spanish words I
cannot spell. As for its leaders, having a designated leader was
dangerous to that leader under the Sandinistas.
The activities and demise of this organization are reported in "Human
Rights in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas", which contains among other
things extensive quotes from the CPDH.
It was a fairly left wing organization whose voluminous reports on
human rights violations by Somoza were a major factor in his fall.
Like every other organization independent of the state, for example
the unions, it was of course eventually crushed by the Sandinistas but
before it was suppressed, it issued numerous voluminous indictments of
the crimes of the Sandinistas, in the same way it had previously
issued voluminous indictments of Somoza WITHOUT BEING CRUSHED.
James A. Donald:
> > There probably were none murdered, because there were no human rights
> > workers in Stalin's Russia, and after 1985, none in Nicaragua.
William Fason:
> What are you talikng about? I was there in 1986, I talked with them.
If you went to Nicaragua in 1986, there was rationing in Nicaragua at
that time, but I bet you did not notice any rationing, same as you did
not notice any human rights violations either. You ate in luxury
while the masses got cattle food. Anyone you talked to was privileged
and comfortable. The "human rights activists" you were talking to
were the torturers, not the torturees, probably recently members of
Somoza's secret police, like the leadership of most of the
organizations that the Sandinistas created to replace the private
organizations they suppressed.
James A. Donald:
> > No one can name the parties [that the Sandinistas created to give
> > the appearance of democracy to the 1984 elections]. They had no
> > real existence. They were mere fleeting shadows. They came into
> > existence just before the election, and ceased to exist
> > immediately after the election.
William Fason:
> Wrong. They particiapted in the 1984 elections, and then again in
> the 1990 elections. While I can't name them this instant [...]
A party you cannot name allegedly participated in both the 1984 and
1990 elections. Such a claim fails to inspire confidence. Look up
that party and the 1990 elections before making such a claim.
James A. Donald:
> > But everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, and
> > who was conspicuously absent from those elections, as was her
> > party.
William Fason:
> She never had any intention, announced or otherwise, of running in
> those elections! She did not file until 1990.
She certainly had the loudly announced intention of challenging the
Sandinistas for power, for struggling with them for power, an
announcement that she vehemently made when the Sandinistas deposed
her. But yes, it is certainly true she did not have the intention of
running in those elections under circumstances where most of her
supporters would surely have been murdered shortly after the
elections.
James A. Donald:
> > Everyone can name Violeta Chamorro, who overthrew Somoza, who won
> > the first honest election after the overthrow of Somoza, and who
> > was curiously absent from the communist elections of 1984.
William Fason:
> So you are claiming here that Violeta Chamorro wanted to run in the
> 1984 elections? And that somehow she was prevented?
No one wanted to run in the 1984 elections. The Sandinistas had to
bribe people and twist their arms to get them to run. The only
question in dispute is the reason for this widespread lack of
enthusiasm.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
N4xjH+22eITU903p0mP0VPgAprh5IA5bzD2F8Z2C
4Hx3/bOldQr/D9Z0xUzwhJuwJVccIUN07+nSe1LLP
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Chamorro was the opposition.
William Fason:
> Ludicrous.
James A. Donald
> > She was the woman who overthrew Somoza.
William Fason:
> Single-handidly. Quite a feat. You have a very active imagination. When
> pressed for facts and sources, you simply repeat yourself
liar.
I have repeatedly given sources. You have given none. Your sole
source has been yourself, as for example when you confidently told us
that a party whose name you cannot remember continued to exist even
when the Sandinistas ceased to have need for that particular charade.
Further, you never tell me what you want a source for? For example do
you deny for example that Chamorro was one of the junta of five, or
merely that she was the most visible and best known member of the
Junta?
How can I provide a source if you never tell me what facts you dispute
or deny?
Pretty obviously, you have never heard of the Junta, you do not know
what it did, how it came to power, how Chamorro lost power.
You do not even know enough to start asking me for sources.
I will gladly provide sources if you do enough homework you can ask me
for evidence for some specific fact, but plainly you simply do not
know enough even to ask.
You call me ignorant, and accuse me of making up facts. OK. Of the
facts I have provided in support of my claims, which facts are
allegedly untrue?
James A. Donald
> > I presume this mysterious much cited but unquoted report is "Electoral
> > Process in Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences" As far
> > as I can tell, only Chomsky interprets it as saying what he claims it
> > says.
William Fason:
> I can't remember if that is the title or not. Have you the courage to
> actually read it yourself?
I have read a great many documents referenced by Chomsky. None of
them have had much resemblance to what he claimed they said, except
those put out by famous mass murderers. He can make up cites faster
than I can read them.
If this document actually said what he claims, it would be widely
available. It is not. Every document cited by Chomsky involves a
lengthy wild goose chase to find. He deliberately uses hard to get
documents, or conceals their provenance so that one cannot easily
discover where they are.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
6buaCUBVXeajPlFpwp2D8CFgCPgge+4uIXcda9m9
4heMHtlXYFdD97QHRffjtEoxtcqeD+y8Uvsj+dR+3
G*rd*n
| ...
| The account is obviously biased, but is another example of Chomsky
| agreeing to publicly talk to someone hostile to his ideas.
I think it would be more to Chomsky's credit if he had
refused to debate most of the people mentioned.
Debate is a rhetorical game in which the validity of the
material presented by the contending parties is only a part,
indeed sometimes a very small part, of the forces brought to
bear. Eloquence, a sense of the dramatic, or the ability to
deliver a lie with a straight face can be much more important.
And when the debate is between radicals or dissidents of any
kind, and those representing the ruling class or the prejudices
of the majority, the radicals start off with the significant
disadvantage of having the terms of the debate arranged against
them, even before the contest has nominally begun, by the
State's organs of indoctrination and propaganda. Hence, it's
almost always a waste of time for them to bother debating
exponents of the established order -- as you can see from some
of the other branches of this thread.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 12/6/99 }
jo...@my-deja.com
constan...@my-deja.com (Constantinople) wrote:
> jo...@my-deja.com wrote in <85hdiu$iuu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >> Silber implies that Chomsky avoids debates and that Silber is
> >> doing something unusual in answering him directly, thereby
> >> making this program into a debate. He says,
> >>
> >> "You engage in a series of fabrications of truth and it's time
> >> that somebody had the opportunity of correcting your
> >> historical misstatements while you're still around..." and
> >> then,
> >>
> >> "I'm the first one that stopped your monopoly on
> >> misinformation."
> >>
> >> Which to me is a couple of very weird things to say, unless
> >> Chomsky had been avoiding debates.
> >>
> >
> >Why on Earth would you take what Silber says here seriously when
> >other things he says in the debate are so OBSCENELY false?
> >Silber calls the awful treatment of the Miskitos by the
> >Sandinistas more serious than any other government-sanctioned
> >crimes asnywhere in Latin America until the time of that debate!
>
>
> "The repression there is massive. It is more serious than
> anything we have seen in Central America or in any Latin American
>
> massacres but "it" refers to "repression" not "massacres" (which
> is plural, and therefore, if Silber were referring to
> "massacres", he would have used the words "they are" rather than
> "it is").
>
> Either you did not read the page, or you are lying, or you have
> trouble reading.
>
> --
My mistake. I missed the fact that he was talking about Nicaraguan
repression as a whole compared the rest of Central America. This is
even more obscene than if he was only referring to the treatment of the
Miskitos. Even if he threw in the attrocities and repression committed
by the Contras, (which Silber enthusiastically supported, so obviously
he wasn't including them) the problems of this sort pale in comparison
to monstrous crimes backed by Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, and Ford
elsewhere in the region.
Jon Duncan
James A. Donald
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 22:19:46 -0500, "Robert Vogel"
<vo...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> You definitely need to look carefully at :
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html
If it was true that the CIA was importing drugs, I would support them,
especially if the drugs were any good.
But in reality the CIA could not run a hamburger stand, so it seems
unlikely they are importing drugs.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
z0kBs2mGyvakRRCL4jB+TpJUMjynikEA0dykm/r5
4McM9c0xWhGPtGvU5K5jCbhtIL/QQORETmCY/ihog
G*rd*n
| > You definitely need to look carefully at :
| >
| > http://www.angelfire.com/id/ciadrugs/index.html
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| If it was true that the CIA was importing drugs, I would support them,
| especially if the drugs were any good.
|
| But in reality the CIA could not run a hamburger stand, so it seems
| unlikely they are importing drugs.
As one of the authors, Michael Levine, says, "For decades,
the CIA, the Pentagon, and secret organizations like Oliver
North's Enterprise have been supporting and protecting the
world's biggest drug dealers...." That is, they don't
actually do the importing themselves, they have other people
do it under their tutelage and to a large extent their
control. Once the drugs have been imported, they pass under
the control of the local police. Again, the police do not
do the business; they play a supervisory and protective
role. Cops who actually get their hands dirty usually get
busted after a while.
I don't think the monopolies created by this situation
contribute to improving the quality of the drugs imported.
While I believe ultimately in a communistic distribution of
good drugs, free-market reforms would be a step in the right
direction. Also, it would be a relief to know that one's
drug purchases were not supporting the worst elements in
the government.
William Fason
> If it was true that the CIA was importing drugs, I would support them,
> especially if the drugs were any good.
Here is the problem, ladies and gentlemen. Me thinks he's fried his
braincells. Let this be a lesson, kids, about the dangers of drug abuse.
> But in reality the CIA could not run a hamburger stand, so it seems
> unlikely they are importing drugs.
When investigators went through Oliver North's notebook, they found many
passages discussing shipments of arms, financing, etc. At one point Oliver
North : "$14 M(illion) to finance came from drugs."
What do you suppose he meant by this?
William Fason
> > When did Arbenz "make a pact" with the SU?
>
> No one knows,
You just claimed that he did.
Donald A. James, usenet, Saturday, January 15, 2000 6:53 PM
"2. Against anyone who made a pact with the Soviets (as Arbenz did)
for arms and money to use against his internal opponents."
You can't even keep your statements straight, can you?
>but a large shipment of Czechoslovak arms arrived for
> him personally a
No, that purchase of arms of Czechoslovakia was for his government after the
US had pressured all its allies not to sell any arms to the Arevalo/Arbenz
governments. The US was putting pressure on the gov, rumours of a US-backed
coup were circulating, and the gov. - like all gov's - needed guns to keep
itself in power.
>little while after he banned anti communist protests.
When did he supposedly do this? Did he do it by decree? Was it an act of
the parliament? Were there prosecutions? Who was charged? When? What were
there sentences? (Anyone want to bet that once again Donald A. James can't
produce the evidence?)
> Similarly no one has any explicit evidence of a similar pact between
> Aramas and the US, but everyone, including yourself, confidently
> refers to his revolt against Arbenz as "US sponsored" on the basis of
> the considerable circumstantial evidence.
On the contrary. Declassified US gov documents make this clear. Clinton just
released more documents in the past few years, went down to Guatamala,
talked about it. Also, 13 years ago I met and interviewed Phil Roettinger,
one of the CIA officers who ran the coup. He has gone public, he should not
be terribly difficult to locate.
There is a wealth of scholarship about US involvement in the '54 coup for
anyone who truly had the willingess to get to a library. I've already given
you two sources in the unlikely possibility that you care to read anything
at all that contradicts your fantasy world.
>We have equally good
> circumstantial evidence that Arbenz's power grab was Soviet sponsored.
Arbenz was voted into power. Arevalo came to power through the revolution
of (I think) 1944, and subsequently stood for election, served a term as
president.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > In particular the human rights groups that had done so much to
> > > alert the world to crimes of Somoza were completely silenced and
> > > disbanded by the Sandinistas.
>
> William Fason:
> > What what its name? Who were its leaders?
>
> Its name was the CPDH, which stands for a bunch of spanish words I
> cannot spell. As for its leaders, having a designated leader was
> dangerous to that leader under the Sandinistas.
>
> The activities and demise of this organization are reported in "Human
> Rights in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas", which contains among other
> things extensive quotes from the CPDH.
Author?
>
> It was a fairly left wing organization whose voluminous reports on
> human rights violations by Somoza were a major factor in his fall.
> Like every other organization independent of the state, for example
> the unions, it was of course eventually crushed by the Sandinistas but
> before it was suppressed, it issued numerous voluminous indictments of
> the crimes of the Sandinistas, in the same way it had previously
> issued voluminous indictments of Somoza WITHOUT BEING CRUSHED.
Earlier you had claimed it had been disbanded in 1985. Which is it?
I was there in 1986, went to their office in Managua. They were open for
business.
In fact, I went to the offices of two human rights groups.
> James A. Donald:
> If you went to Nicaragua in 1986, there was rationing in Nicaragua at
Indeed there was.
> that time, but I bet you did not notice any rationing, same as you did
> not notice any human rights violations either. You ate in luxury
Once again you have no personal knowledge of my trip. Of course, that never
keeps you from making statements. You are gaining information from gazing at
the clear blue sky outside your window.
> William Fason:
> > So you are claiming here that Violeta Chamorro wanted to run in the
> > 1984 elections? And that somehow she was prevented?
>
> No one wanted to run in the 1984 elections. The Sandinistas had to
> bribe people and twist their arms to get them to run.
Who did they bribe? names? Dates? Places?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
> > But in reality the CIA could not run a hamburger stand, so it seems
> > unlikely they are importing drugs.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:21:17 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> When investigators went through Oliver North's notebook, they found many
> passages discussing shipments of arms, financing, etc. At one point Oliver
> North : "$14 M(illion) to finance came from drugs."
>
> What do you suppose he meant by this?
That someone in the contras was dealing drugs.
The contras, recall, were a revolutionary movement with no central
command, no top level hierarchy, no central committee, They were not
a branch of the CIA. Had they been a branch of the CIA, they probably
would have lost instead of won.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
VyY6VUpqZz2ezlKNbRkn0PpOeBVYBzWpLAa+9Up7
4BVi1JNS0C2OpzH4zOVXoS1ZRvITE76XIC2A90m1M
William Fason
> The contras, recall, were a revolutionary movement with no central
> command, no top level hierarchy, no central committee, They were not
> a branch of the CIA.
Looking out your window, taking a hit off that bong, and diving answers
from the clear blue sky. Facts be damned. Anyone who mentions them is a
"liar."
James A. Donald
William Fason:
> > > When did Arbenz "make a pact" with the SU?
James A. Donald:
> > No one knows,
William Fason:
> You just claimed that he did.
I claimed that he made a pact. I did not say that anyone knew the
date and details. He received money and arms from the Soviet Union,
and did various things that benefited the Soviet Union, in particular
he engaged in repression against those deemed enemies of communism and
the Soviet Union. These events are reasonable circumstantial evidence
of a pact.
Similarly no one knows the date and details of the pact that Aramas
made with the US, but no one doubts he made such a pact. In
particular you have no doubt he made such a pact, even though you
cannot provide date and details for that pact.
William Fason:
> You can't even keep your statements straight, can you?
You a lying scumbag, and anyone who bothers to check this thread can
see that you are lying about what I said, and about what you said.
I pointed out that Arbenz made a pact with the soviet union for arms
and money to attack his internal enemies. I provided evidence of such
a pact. You demanded a kind of evidence that you knew could not
possibly exist, and kind of evidence that you never demand for your
own allegations, and then treated the non existence of this evidence
as an admission of the falsehood of my allegation.
James A. Donald:
> > but a large shipment of Czechoslovak arms arrived for
> > him personally
William Fason:
> No, that purchase of arms of Czechoslovakia was for his government after the
> US had pressured all its allies not to sell any arms to the Arevalo/Arbenz
> governments.
That shipment of arms was a gift, not a purchase.
> The US was putting pressure on the gov, rumours of a US-backed
> coup were circulating, and the gov. - like all gov's - needed guns to keep
> itself in power.
Most governments subject to an external threat do not apply their guns
against the supreme court, almost all political parties, and against
university students.
He was not repressing people deemed pro United States. He was
repressing his internal enemies and also repressing people deemed anti
communist, the latter presumably at the behest of his new friends.
The bottom line is that Arbenz provoked internal resistance, involving
widespread bloodshed. He then turned to the Soviet Union for support,
and his enemies then turned to the US for support. This story does
not reflect credit on anyone, but the Soviet Union meddled, and as
usual meddled on the side of established power, tyranny and murder,
before the US meddled. The Soviet Union first gave arms to one side
in an internal power struggle, and the United States THEN gave arms to
the other side. There was widespread violence long before either
bunch of arms arrived.
> > little while after he banned anti communist protests.
> When did he supposedly do this?
Instead of asking me, you should look up any history book or
encyclopedia, but since you insist, I will do it for you.
Microsoft Encarta article on Guatemala:
Among numerous indications of the growing influence of
Guatemalan Communists was a government order in January
forbidding anti-Communist demonstrations.
I suggest you should try looking up basic facts that are known to
everyone, before smearing me as a liar.
> Did he do it by decree?
The encyclopedia fails to say, but since he had by that time
terrorized parliament, according to Rosenthal, it hardly makes much
difference.
> Was it an act of
> the parliament? Were there prosecutions?]
Prosecutions!!!. Don't be ridiculous. People were not prosecuted,
they were tortured. Electric cattle prods up the ass, mutilations,
that kind of stuff. (You can tell Arbenz was not really a commie.
Real commies are too puritanical to apply electric cattle prods up
people's asses. They prefer skinning people alive with red hot
hooks.)
Even before Arbenz disbanded the supreme court, prosecutions had
almost totally ceased.
> > We have equally good
> > circumstantial evidence that Arbenz's power grab was Soviet sponsored.
> Arbenz was voted into power.
He was not voted into power.
Arbenz was appointed to power by his predecessor, and attempted to
vastly extend that power, to take absolute power, rather than merely
power as first amongst an elite. This provoked violent conflict with
the rest of the affluent classes. He turned to the Soviet Union for
assistance. His enemies turned to the US.
James A. Donald:
> > If you went to Nicaragua in 1986, there was rationing in Nicaragua at
> > that time, but I bet you did not notice any rationing, same as you did
> > not notice any human rights violations either. You ate in luxury
William Fason:
> Once again you have no personal knowledge of my trip.
I do have personal first hand knowledge of the way the politically
correct pilgrims usually treat the "masses" of the "liberated"
countries they visit. I have no reason to believe you are any better
than the rest, and ample reason to believe you behaved as badly or
worse.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9so/EMEXoD4R2zv9ANj/ih0zsTe/GWvAAYR1WBOp
4EroKS6svnNOw/a47Z972B0MG1iJzt5KDTn8rfUFJ
Matt
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > William Fason:
> > > When did Arbenz "make a pact" with the SU?
James:
> > No one knows,
William:
> You just claimed that he did.
>
> Donald A. James, usenet, Saturday, January 15, 2000 6:53 PM
> "2. Against anyone who made a pact with the Soviets (as Arbenz did)
> for arms and money to use against his internal opponents."
>
> You can't even keep your statements straight, can you?
Speak for yourself. The question you asked above was "when," not "did."
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
James A. Donald
> > command, no top level hierarchy, no central committee, They were not
> > a branch of the CIA.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:53:50 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Looking out your window, taking a hit off that bong, and diving answers
> from the clear blue sky. Facts be damned. Anyone who mentions them is a
> "liar."
For an inside look at how the contras were organized, I suggest you
read "Rafaga", the biography of one contra leader.
He took up arms against the Sandinistas long before he received any
CIA assistance.
He describes a dispute he had with another leader, which occurred
after they had received considerable CIA assistance. They both went
from camp to camp, each trying to persuade their fellow fighters to
see things their way, and each trying to feel out how acceptable it
would be to use force against the other leader. They did not appeal
to higher authority.
In contrast, all internal Sandanista disagreements were appealed to
Castro, who probably passed the more important ones up to the Kremlin.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
nMxZssMxNLT5KyJAbqtCQueB22NWpDAxkTefJAdN
4Sm6MA5ZpgAo5e3sAxDatSgUGJzSgAkAN91VsVX1d
William Fason
> read "Rafaga", the biography of one contra leader.
Thanks. Who wrote it?
Matt
> bigdlaura1 says...
> | ...
> | The account is obviously biased, but is another example of Chomsky
> | agreeing to publicly talk to someone hostile to his ideas.
> | ...
>
> I think it would be more to Chomsky's credit if he had
> refused to debate most of the people mentioned.
>
> Debate is a rhetorical game in which the validity of the
> material presented by the contending parties is only a part,
> indeed sometimes a very small part, of the forces brought to
> bear.
Sounds like a cop out from someone who consistently loses debates. ;)
In my view, debate is often a good way to test ideas. It's not a good
way to discover truth--it's often too fast-paced and emotional to
properly think things through--but it is a good way to discover
strengths and weaknesses in your arguments. So an unwillingness to
debate doesn't tell us anything about the validity of Chomsky's
arguments, but it does tell us something about Chomsky's confidence in
their validity, as well as his confidence in his ability to be
persuasive when opponents can easily step in and rebut him. Chomsky did
at least debate Silber, but other than that his willingness to debate
seems weak.
I find it striking that the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism,
David Friedman, is easily accessible, free of charge, by email and
Usenet, while the leading exponent of anarcho-socialism, Chomsky, is not
accessible at all to ordinary people, apparently except in a moderated
left-wing forum that you have to pay for.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
William Fason
> Similarly no one has any explicit evidence of a similar pact between
> Aramas and the US, but everyone, including yourself, confidently
> refers to his revolt against Arbenz as "US sponsored" on the basis of
> the considerable circumstantial evidence.
Evidence for US-Aramas pact.
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/intellsite/cia1950s_folder/cia1950sguat.html
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
The 1950s
Guatemala (1954)
On 16 May 1997, CIA's Historical Review Group released to National Archives
and Records Administration the first group of declassified records on
Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA's 1954 covert action in Guatemala. This first
release included more than 1,000 pages of operational records and two
previously classified studies of the operation. Also released were 324
recordings from Operation SHERWOOD, an anti-Arbenz clandestine radio
transmitter. Additional records will be released in the future. Center for
the Study of Intelligence Newsletter 7 (Winter-Spring 1997): 1-2.
Matt
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > Similarly no one has any explicit evidence of a similar pact between
> > Aramas and the US, but everyone, including yourself, confidently
> > refers to his revolt against Arbenz as "US sponsored" on the basis of
> > the considerable circumstantial evidence.
>
> Evidence for US-Aramas pact.
> http://intellit.muskingum.edu/intellsite/cia1950s_folder/cia1950sguat.
> html
"Aramas" does not appear on that page, so I take it the right spelling
is Armas. Castillo Armas is mentioned twice:
"Castillo Armas, C. "How Guatemala Got Rid of the Communists." American
Mercury 80 (Jan. 1955): 140-141. [Petersen]"
"Marks, Frederick W., III. "The CIA and Castillo Armas in
Guatemala,1954: New Clues to an Old Puzzle." Diplomatic
History 14, no. 1 (1990): 67-86. [Petersen]"
These bibliographic entries sound like they might point to evidence of
an explicit pact, but the entries themselves don't tell us anything.
Was your intention to have us look up these entries, or do you think the
entries themselves or the following paragraph demonstrate your point?
> CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY The 1950s Guatemala (1954)
>
> On 16 May 1997, CIA's Historical Review Group released to National
> Archives and Records Administration the first group of declassified
> records on Operation PBSUCCESS, the CIA's 1954 covert action in
> Guatemala. This first release included more than 1,000 pages of
> operational records and two previously classified studies of the
> operation. Also released were 324 recordings from Operation SHERWOOD,
> an anti-Arbenz clandestine radio transmitter. Additional records will
> be released in the future. Center for the Study of Intelligence
> Newsletter 7 (Winter-Spring 1997): 1-2.
I don't see what you think this paragraph adduces. It doesn't say
anything about an explicit pact between Armas and the US. You haven't
exposed Donald's ignorance to your readers until you actually provide
evidence that he was wrong. All you have done is provide a list of
sources that sound like they discuss the subject matter. You need to
provide a real quote, or a citation specific enough that I can look it
up in a university library.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
James A. Donald
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:27:48 -0500, "Robert Vogel"
<vo...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
> Check out www.soaw.org
Notice the dates on all these wicked crimes described in that URL.
Fascinating how all this inside information on the wicked crimes of
the US comes from before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It seems that when Berlin wall fell, this mysterious source of inside
inforamtion on the crimes of the US mysteriously dried up.
Odd thing that.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
aFZUN/3mL2MqO6+HUuN9q6y19cfn9ipblM9x0sEE
4rGa24lhHvx7h7pUpcO0DkDiHzh0sAccvP0fy1fAW
William Fason
> "Aramas" does not appear on that page, so I take it the right spelling
> is Armas. Castillo Armas is mentioned twice:
Ya got me, Matt, I'm busted. <g>
> These bibliographic entries sound like they might point to evidence of
> an explicit pact, but the entries themselves don't tell us anything.
> Was your intention to have us look up these entries, or do you think the
> entries themselves or the following paragraph demonstrate your point?
> I don't see what you think this paragraph adduces. It doesn't say
> anything about an explicit pact between Armas and the US.
OK. I admit I have not reviewed those more than 1000 pages of declassified
CIA documents. But I have read Immerman's book, "The CIA in Guatemala"
published in 1982. (I had erred earlier when I said it was written by
"Zimmerman." Forgive me, it has been many years.) I read it when it was
published, and it was astounding. Very disheartening to think that the US
would destablize any democratically elected government, especially one that
was our ally against fascism, just because they stepped on the toes of
United Fruit. Now if you are looking for a note, "Dear Castillo, Enclosed
is my signature on our pact, some weapons, and a check for several million
dollars. The Dulles Brother will be in touch. Love, Ike," I doubt you will
find it. But what exactly is required? The evidence is clear: the US
overthrew a constitionally-elected government in Guatemala, ushering in a
reign of terror lasting several decades.
The US also overthrew constitutionally-elected governments in Iran (1953),
Brazil (1964), Chile (1973) and other countries. The US helped overthrow a
government in Indonesia in the late 1960's, sponsored a massive bloodbath
there. The US government sponsored wars in The Congo, helped Motbutu come to
power, provied training and hardware to his rapacious dictatorship.
I have not asked Mr. James *any* questions whcih I am not likewise prepared
to answer. I have not accused him of being a "liar" just because we
disagree. In truth, being a liar requires that the speaker actually know
the truth, which Mr. James IMHO does not know. His statements are more like
the random babblings of a small child. I have constantly asked him
questions, he repeates himself, hurls accusations, attacks the speaker,
argues from ignorance. He never onces asks, "Why do you think what you say
here is true?" The facts speak for themselves. His style of argument
mirrors that of Louis Proyect, a cranky, hardcore Trotskyist over in
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. Over there the communists accuse me of
being a fascist bourgeois brain-washed by CNN and the US mass media. Mr.
James accuses me of being a liar, a totalitarian, politically correct, and
essentially a communist. In truth, my own politics veer most closely
towards libertarian. I think the ideal would be an extremely small
government with narrowly delineated powers, respect for property rights,
freedom of the individual, free minds, free markets, etc. (In fact, I make
my living by buying, selling, and enforcing property rights.) But I
recognize that I am in a distinct minority in my political views.
Nonetheless, I don't let my own political wishes interfere with my attempts
to come to grips with the truth of US foreign policy, which I find cynical
beyond belief.
And now I must disappear. Work calls me.
Regards,
Bill
> You haven't
> exposed Donald's ignorance to your readers until you actually provide
> evidence that he was wrong. All you have done is provide a list of
> sources that sound like they discuss the subject matter. You need to
> provide a real quote, or a citation specific enough that I can look it
> up in a university library.
OK, Matt, that is fair enough. Again, I suggest Kinzer's "Bitter Fruit"
and Immerman's "The CIA in Guatemala."
William Fason
> By the way Fason, your communism is showing.
The explicit red-baiting at last.
>You purport to be a centrist,
I am hardly a centrist. Been called many things, but not that.
>but no one except fans of that old struggle between the CIA
> and KGB (such as myself) has this stuff at their fingertips.
I did a web search. I do research for a living.
If I really had this stuff at my fingertips, it'd be scanned in and posted,
already chapter and verse. As it is I haven't looked at this stuff in a
while.
jo...@my-deja.com
> > command, no top level hierarchy, no central committee, They were
not
> > a branch of the CIA.
>
answers
> from the clear blue sky. Facts be damned. Anyone who mentions them
is a
> "liar."
>
>
I had a professor who visited Nicaragua circa 1987. He talked with
people from both sides plus foreign journalists, etc. One person he
talked to was one of the Contra political figureheads. This "leader"
explained that an upcoming vote in Congress for aid was vital because
if his men were not paid, they would refuse to fight.
Some "revolutionary movement"!
James A. Donald
> > For an inside look at how the contras were organized, I suggest you
> > read "Rafaga", the biography of one contra leader.
William Fason:
> Thanks. Who wrote it?
The authors are Reynaldo Reyes and J.K. Wilson, who are politically
correct leftists.
"Rafaga" is a biography composed almost entirely of lengthy direct
quotes from Rafaga, with selection but very little commentary or
editing by the authors, thus it is almost an autobiography.
The authors are somewhat confused, disturbed, and upset because
Rafaga, who is indigenous indian, is more PC by race than the
Sandinistas, but the Sandinistas are more PC by ideology, being
Marxists.
Despite the fact that the authors knew when they began this project
that Rafaga had spent much of his career at war with a Marxist regime,
and therefore had been industriously shooting socialists, blowing up
socialists, and setting fire to buildings with socialists inside them,
nonetheless they seemed shocked and disappointed to find that Rafaga
was not a socialist. I think they assumed that being Indian and ex
Sandanista automatically ensured he was socialist. Perhaps he was
socialist when he signed up with the Sandinistas, but, surprise
surprise, he changed his mind.
In the author's dedication they explain that the purpose of this book
is to create awareness of the struggles of indigenous peoples. They
seem disturbed and slightly disoriented by the fact that the best
example of armed struggle by an indigenous people in today's Americas
was against Marxism.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ttjFQY1pxrdSnh4QpUqLmMbLgX/wT72k/EPtItxw
4x0JmiIapA7kZjvZXTOHQeFyBdOYtaCtK/JOI+J+m
James A. Donald
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:10:15 -0500, Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
wrote:
> "Aramas" does not appear on that page, so I take it the right spelling
> is Armas.
I have seen it spelt both ways, and have spelt it both ways, so while
we can call Fason a stupid ignorant commie who does not know the
meaning of "circumstantial evidence", I do not think we can hit him
with a spelling flame.
But if the CIA says Armas, I guess I had better stick to Armas in
future
The CIA may not be able to see the Soviet Union collapsing in front of
their faces until the dust from the wall hits them, but they can
probably correctly spell the names of world leaders.
But on the other hand, it probably is not the CIA saying "Armas", it
is probably some half senile doddering retired KGB agent posting about
CIA papers, and the KGB are terrible spellers who can never get
people's names right.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/B+w9OnO3ToKibYqtY0nNSfpeANGgeDCt32nFxU3
4MVyzQTllqq4K/cCRcajs97ETzFi3JeYMHvGM7plt
James A. Donald
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:36:21 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>> Similarly no one has any explicit evidence of a similar pact between
>> Aramas and the US, but everyone, including yourself, confidently
>> refers to his revolt against Arbenz as "US sponsored" on the basis of
>> the considerable circumstantial evidence.
>
>Evidence for US-Aramas pact.
>http://intellit.muskingum.edu/intellsite/cia1950s_folder/cia1950sguat.html
Looks to me like considerable circumstantial evidence.
Explcit evidence would be an actual pact, or a reference to an
agreement made at a particular time.
Like I said, no one has any explicit evidence.
By the way Fason, your communism is showing. You purport to be a
centrist, but no one except fans of that old struggle between the CIA
and KGB (such as myself) has this stuff at their fingertips.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
iWzQKxK8UCv+vg8R7TekWoPvLiRPeXw9Vg7TjZ8H
4OnMF3hHhvohS7cxioIem8Uip5BETvXgBOY2Tfu8M
James A. Donald
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 22:01:01 -0600, "William Fason"
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> OK. I admit I have not reviewed those more than 1000 pages of
> declassified CIA documents. But I have read Immerman's book, "The
> CIA in Guatemala" published in 1982. (I had erred earlier when I
> said it was written by "Zimmerman." Forgive me, it has been many
> years.) I read it when it was published, and it was astounding.
> Very disheartening to think that the US would destablize any
> democratically elected government,
But the Arbenz government was not democratically elected.
So whatever sins the CIA committed, destabilizing a democratically
elected government in Guatemala cannot be one of them. Indeed, that
would be like deflorating a whore. Until recently, democratically
elected governments in Guatemala were few and far between.
Here is the real history of what happened in that incident.
1. Dictator passes very mild land reform law, that if obeyed would
cause some very trivial inconvenience to a few landowners, united
fruit among them.
2. Dictator beats people up and takes stuff at gunpoint.
3. Dictator sued in supreme court. Dictator disbands supreme court.
4 Widespread violent protests.
5 Dictator cosies up with Soviet Union, gets gift of weapons.
Prohibits dissent, imprisons opposition parties.
6 Murder, torture, and terror. My sources say this was mostly by
the dictator, but since this was Guatemala, I am inclined to doubt
them.
7 Rebels cosy up with US. Get gift of weapons.
8 Rebels win.
The politically correct histories, start out at event one. They omit
event two, but quote the reaction to event two by united fruit.
They then skip directly to seven and eight, leaving out two, three,
four, five, six, and seven, which of course gives a wildly misleading
impression.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
prISNWAOvGOTXpaKip8FKC1/sjO5yvAP0akxyy/4
4Jeqy4cAeRm84SxSl0TCxuseoRyMA5Smr3ElV+LeM
Dan Clore
> Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
> > "Aramas" does not appear on that page, so I take it the right spelling
[snip]
> I have not asked Mr. James *any* questions whcih I am not likewise prepared
> to answer. I have not accused him of being a "liar" just because we
> disagree. In truth, being a liar requires that the speaker actually know
> the truth, which Mr. James IMHO does not know. His statements are more like
> the random babblings of a small child. I have constantly asked him
> questions, he repeates himself, hurls accusations, attacks the speaker,
> argues from ignorance. He never onces asks, "Why do you think what you say
> here is true?" The facts speak for themselves. His style of argument
> mirrors that of Louis Proyect, a cranky, hardcore Trotskyist over in
> alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. Over there the communists accuse me of
> being a fascist bourgeois brain-washed by CNN and the US mass media. Mr.
> James accuses me of being a liar, a totalitarian, politically correct, and
> essentially a communist. In truth, my own politics veer most closely
> towards libertarian. I think the ideal would be an extremely small
> government with narrowly delineated powers, respect for property rights,
> freedom of the individual, free minds, free markets, etc. (In fact, I make
> my living by buying, selling, and enforcing property rights.) But I
> recognize that I am in a distinct minority in my political views.
> Nonetheless, I don't let my own political wishes interfere with my attempts
> to come to grips with the truth of US foreign policy, which I find cynical
> beyond belief.
Thank you for stating this. I have been over issues like some of these
with the likes of James Donald, and I find his combination of ignorance,
dishonesty, and asinine accusations of totalitarianism apalling. Though
I am now a left-libertarian, at the time these events were transpiring
in Nicaragua I was associated with right-libertarians and I myself most
favored anarcho-capitalism. All the right-libertarians I knew at the
time utterly despised the US's actions in Central America and many were
involved in human rights campaigns to stop them. Hearing Ronald Reagan
talk about "free markets" and so forth made us sick at his hypocrisy. I
guess I don't really have a point here except to think you for reminding
me that some right-libertarians can honestly face important issues like
this.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Matt
<w.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
> > "Aramas" does not appear on that page, so I take it the right spelling
> > is Armas. Castillo Armas is mentioned twice:
>
> Ya got me, Matt, I'm busted. <g>
By the way, that was not meant to be a "spelling flame," as James called
it. I don't care if you misspell a name.
> > These bibliographic entries sound like they might point to evidence
> > of an explicit pact, but the entries themselves don't tell us
> > anything. Was your intention to have us look up these entries, or
> > do you think the entries themselves or the following paragraph
> > demonstrate your point? I don't see what you think this paragraph
> > adduces. It doesn't say anything about an explicit pact between
> > Armas and the US.
> OK. I admit I have not reviewed those more than 1000 pages of
> declassified CIA documents. But I have read Immerman's book, "The CIA
> in Guatemala" published in 1982. (I had erred earlier when I said it
> was written by "Zimmerman." Forgive me, it has been many years.) I
> read it when it was published, and it was astounding.
I have read one of Chomsky's books, and I was shocked and appalled by
the actions of the US as he described them. One thing I have learned
since then is that to have any reasonably good opinion on a historical
matter, you need to read more than one source if your source is
ideologically biased. There are simply so many facts that it is
possible to give an account using perfectly true facts that still turns
out to be a distorted picture of reality. This can be done by
selectively picking the facts that suit your picture of the world.
I haven't read Immerman's book, so I can't comment on it. I am just
saying that there is usually another side to the story. Politics and
history can be so complex that one person might utterly astound you, but
then you will be equally astounded by the opposing thesis if you bother
to consider it. It seems like James does have a plausible opposing
thesis, but right now I could be persuaded either way.
> Very
> disheartening to think that the US would destablize any
> democratically elected government, especially one that was our ally
> against fascism, just because they stepped on the toes of United
> Fruit. Now if you are looking for a note, "Dear Castillo, Enclosed
> is my signature on our pact, some weapons, and a check for several
> million dollars. The Dulles Brother will be in touch. Love, Ike," I
> doubt you will find it. But what exactly is required?
Well, James said there was no explicit evidence for a pact between the
US and Armas, and you contradicted him. You provided a link to a list
of a lot of promising sources, but so far you have not successfully
contradicted him. If you can identify one particular source that offers
explicit evidence of such a pact, you will then have successfully
contradicted James.
> The evidence
> is clear: the US overthrew a constitionally-elected government in
> Guatemala, ushering in a reign of terror lasting several decades.
That statement is too broad to tell us anything about the specific
subject matter here. The subject matter has to do with pacts--between
the US and Armas, and between the USSR and Arbenz.
If I have been correctly following this debate, James inferred there was
a pact between Arbenz and the USSR. You demanded specific evidence of
the pact, and James admitted he had none. But James claimed it was
reasonable to infer there was a pact based on what happened. He points
out that you infer a pact based on what happened without specific
evidence. He seems to be right in this respect: from what you say
above, you don't seem to have any specific evidence of a pact, but you
think it's reasonable to infer that there was one. Thus, if we hold
James to the same standard to which you hold yourself, James's inference
seems plausible.
> The US also overthrew constitutionally-elected governments in Iran
> (1953), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973) and other countries.
I'm concerned that you uncriticially accept left-wing interpretations of
these events. My memory is rusty, but I am quite confident about Chile:
the US did not overthrow Allende. I believe the Chilean military
overthrew Allende independently of the US. The US was quite hostile to
Allende, and indeed (as I recall) considered overthrowing Allende by
supporting a right-wing ex-military officer named Roberto Viaux. But
the US's plans to overthrow Allende fell threw, and the actual coup was
performed by the Chilean military, not by the US or by US agents.
> The US helped overthrow a government in Indonesia in the late 1960's,
> sponsored a massive bloodbath there. The US government sponsored wars
> in The Congo, helped Motbutu come to power, provied training and
> hardware to his rapacious dictatorship.
You can gather most of this by reading Chomsky, but I do not trust
Chomsky's interpretations. I'm not saying I agree with US foreign
policy. I am just saying that some interpretations of the US
misconstrue reality in various ways. One way, for example, is not
paying attention to details. The US was against Allende, and Allende
was overthrown, but it does not follow that the US overthrew Allende.
> I have not asked Mr. James *any* questions whcih I am not likewise
> prepared to answer. I have not accused him of being a "liar" just
> because we disagree. In truth, being a liar requires that the
> speaker actually know the truth, which Mr. James IMHO does not know.
> His statements are more like the random babblings of a small child.
He makes himself difficult to argue with, but his posts are clearly more
than "random babblings."
> I have constantly asked him questions, he repeates himself, hurls
> accusations, attacks the speaker, argues from ignorance. He never
> onces asks, "Why do you think what you say here is true?"
Well, he did ask you why do you think what he says is untrue.
> The facts
> speak for themselves. His style of argument mirrors that of Louis
> Proyect, a cranky, hardcore Trotskyist over in
> alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. Over there the communists accuse me
> of being a fascist bourgeois brain-washed by CNN and the US mass
> media. Mr. James accuses me of being a liar, a totalitarian,
> politically correct, and essentially a communist.
The problem with James's style is that he makes it very easy for
opponents to confidently dismiss him as a crank, because he is so
aggressive and uncharitable, yet I think he makes a lot of valid points.
> In truth, my own politics veer most closely towards libertarian. I
> think the ideal would be an extremely small government with narrowly
> delineated powers, respect for property rights, freedom of the
> individual, free minds, free markets, etc. (In fact, I make my
> living by buying, selling, and enforcing property rights.) But I
> recognize that I am in a distinct minority in my political views.
> Nonetheless, I don't let my own political wishes interfere with my
> attempts to come to grips with the truth of US foreign policy, which
> I find cynical beyond belief.
I agree that it is quite cynical. The problem is that you seem to agree
with interpretations that construe the US as a vicious totalitarian
empire, rather than as a mere state acting according to its power
interests.
As an anarchist I have strong moral objections to the state and what it
does. But I recognize what sort of institution it is. It is a
political institution, meaning its interests are defined in terms of
power. The people in charge of it think about power, and how some
actions will affect the balance of power in contrast to others. If two
states' interests conflict and there is no acceptable means of
peacefully resolving the conflict, the states will go to war. If hot
war is untenable, they will use proxy armies, like the contras, instead.
They may well subvert democracy and support all kinds of human rights
violations: But they are states. That is what they do. Because of the
type of institution they are, they act primarily according to power
interests, not moral interests. If we are talking about superpower
states, we will see this problem amplified.
I think it is right to morally condemn the state. I don't agree with
the realists in this respect. They either irrationally love the state,
or rationally (but, I think, incorrectly) think the nation-state system
is better than anything else. But they are right that states act
according to power interests. States exist in an international
anarchy--there is no world government. It is a self-help system. If
the rulers of a state feel threatened, they will use or threaten to use
force to protect what they perceive as their national interests. This
is how states act. This is how, I think, the US acted during the Cold
War.
The leftist critics with whom you seem to agree properly recognize the
moral problems with the state's actions. But they are astounded by
this, because they think the state can and should be virtuous. As with
their analysis of human nature, they think the state's nature is
malleable. But this is not so: the state is an institution based on
power, and will act as such. We see that the US is often involved in
terribly immoral activities. Well, what do you expect? That's not a
justification, but, on the other hand, the fact that the US acts
immorally does not indicate it is run by particularly evil statesmen
plotting capitalist domination of the world. Rather, it only indicates
that the US is another state acting according to its perceived interests
in a self-help system.
> > You haven't
> > exposed Donald's ignorance to your readers until you actually provide
> > evidence that he was wrong. All you have done is provide a list of
> > sources that sound like they discuss the subject matter. You need to
> > provide a real quote, or a citation specific enough that I can look it
> > up in a university library.
>
> OK, Matt, that is fair enough. Again, I suggest Kinzer's "Bitter Fruit"
> and Immerman's "The CIA in Guatemala."
Thanks for the references.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Michael Carley
>I find it striking that the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism,
>David Friedman, is easily accessible, free of charge, by email and
>Usenet, while the leading exponent of anarcho-socialism, Chomsky, is not
>accessible at all to ordinary people, apparently except in a moderated
>left-wing forum that you have to pay for.
Chomsky is well known for writing long, detailed, thoughtful replies
to anyone who writes to him on paper.
--
``Permitt not your schollars to ramble abroad, especially lett them not
soe much as peepe into a tavern or tipleing house'' (Provost Loftus).
My return address has the user name reversed.
G*rd*n
| > | ...
| > | The account is obviously biased, but is another example of Chomsky
| > | agreeing to publicly talk to someone hostile to his ideas.
| > | ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > I think it would be more to Chomsky's credit if he had
| > refused to debate most of the people mentioned.
| >
| > Debate is a rhetorical game in which the validity of the
| > material presented by the contending parties is only a part,
| > indeed sometimes a very small part, of the forces brought to
| > bear.
Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>:
| Sounds like a cop out from someone who consistently loses debates. ;)
Of course. That's because you're not thinking the matter
through, and you're probably not using evidence. If you
observe even a small set of debates, you'll probably find
that what I have said is true. I include Usenet "debates";
there are plenty of them to observe.
| In my view, debate is often a good way to test ideas. It's not a good
| way to discover truth--it's often too fast-paced and emotional to
| properly think things through--but it is a good way to discover
| strengths and weaknesses in your arguments. So an unwillingness to
| debate doesn't tell us anything about the validity of Chomsky's
| arguments, but it does tell us something about Chomsky's confidence in
| their validity, as well as his confidence in his ability to be
| persuasive when opponents can easily step in and rebut him. Chomsky did
| at least debate Silber, but other than that his willingness to debate
| seems weak.
And what was the outcome of debating the likes of Silber?
Nothing. It was clearly a worthless procedure. No ideas
were tested, and no one's mind was changed. James Donald,
decades later, still thinks Silber is correct. So Chomsky
wasted his time.
| I find it striking that the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism,
| David Friedman, is easily accessible, free of charge, by email and
| Usenet, while the leading exponent of anarcho-socialism, Chomsky, is not
| accessible at all to ordinary people, apparently except in a moderated
| left-wing forum that you have to pay for.
1. You don't have to pay for ZNet, or at least you didn't the
last time I visited.
2. I don't think Chomsky's ideology is consistent enough to
be called "anarcho-socialism".
3. Maybe he's busier than David Friedman.
Matt
Matt:
> | In my view, debate is often a good way to test ideas. It's not a good
> | way to discover truth--it's often too fast-paced and emotional to
> | properly think things through--but it is a good way to discover
> | strengths and weaknesses in your arguments. So an unwillingness to
> | debate doesn't tell us anything about the validity of Chomsky's
> | arguments, but it does tell us something about Chomsky's confidence in
> | their validity, as well as his confidence in his ability to be
> | persuasive when opponents can easily step in and rebut him. Chomsky did
> | at least debate Silber, but other than that his willingness to debate
> | seems weak.
Gordon:
> And what was the outcome of debating the likes of Silber?
> Nothing. It was clearly a worthless procedure. No ideas
> were tested, and no one's mind was changed. James Donald,
> decades later, still thinks Silber is correct. So Chomsky
> wasted his time.
It looked like a useful exercise to me. Again, debate between bitterly
opposed contestants is not likely to be a good means of discerning
truth. But by looking at that debate I can get a sense of where
Chomsky's argument is weak, and where Silber is weak. If you only read,
say, Chomsky's writing, it will seem much stronger, because there is no
opposing voice to point out where Chomsky is not as strong as he thinks
he is.
The ideal way to do it is to read books by both sides and figure it out
yourself; debate is a way to speed up that process. It is a messy and
probably not very accurate way to do it, but nevertheless it gives you a
quick way to consider two opposing viewpoints.
> | I find it striking that the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism,
> | David Friedman, is easily accessible, free of charge, by email and
> | Usenet, while the leading exponent of anarcho-socialism, Chomsky, is not
> | accessible at all to ordinary people, apparently except in a moderated
> | left-wing forum that you have to pay for.
>
> 1. You don't have to pay for ZNet, or at least you didn't the
> last time I visited.
You don't have to pay to visit the web site. You do have to pay to
access the forum with Chomsky, Michael Albert, Barbara Ehrenreich, and
others.
It is called the Z Sustainer Program:
http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm
> 2. I don't think Chomsky's ideology is consistent enough to
> be called "anarcho-socialism".
Well I agree with you there.
> 3. Maybe he's busier than David Friedman.
He writes more books than Friedman, but Friedman gives you more for your
money.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Matt
wrote:
> Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid> writes:
>
> >I find it striking that the leading exponent of anarcho-capitalism,
> >David Friedman, is easily accessible, free of charge, by email and
> >Usenet, while the leading exponent of anarcho-socialism, Chomsky, is not
> >accessible at all to ordinary people, apparently except in a moderated
> >left-wing forum that you have to pay for.
>
> Chomsky is well known for writing long, detailed, thoughtful replies
> to anyone who writes to him on paper.
To people who suck up to him, or to critics as well? What's his address?
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
G*rd*n
| > 1. You don't have to pay for ZNet, or at least you didn't the
| > last time I visited.
Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>:
| You don't have to pay to visit the web site. You do have to pay to
| access the forum with Chomsky, Michael Albert, Barbara Ehrenreich, and
| others.
|
| It is called the Z Sustainer Program:
|
| http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm
Well, that's the end of _them_. Demanding payment will
filter out all those who aren't already true believers.
A sad end.
I have "accessed" Chomsky, Albert, and Ehrenreich, and while
it was passably interesting, I think I gave better than I
got. _They_ should pay _me_.
| ...
Dan Clore
According to his MIT webpage:
Mail for Noam Chomsky should be sent by regular mail to
MIT E39-219, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
I couldn't give you a source at this date, but he has said that he does
not answer his e-mail (except that from people he knows, etc) because it
would take too much time to go through it all.
James A. Donald
On 17 Jan 2000 10:14:07 -0000, Michael Carley<yelr...@maths.tcd.ie>
wrote:
> Chomsky is well known for writing long, detailed, thoughtful replies
> to anyone who writes to him on paper.
Chomsky is well known for responding to his critics with abuse and
lies. He speaks only on controlled and moderated forums, so that he
can ignore incovenient questions and disturbing facts.
For some a little analysis of two of Chomsky's "thoughtful replies" I
suggest two articles I wrote, one on his thoughtful reply to Anthony
Lewis
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=338648495>
And one on his thoughtful reply to me.
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=534017539>
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
m8xScRg4RkpMaXk0pBzxXvcWyISVNupQR7J1iqhK
4+Wg9TuZZuqZce14awPXWwRHppkjuJQCne6J4HGPY
Michael Carley
>In article <85uq1f$vj5$1...@bell.maths.tcd.ie>, yelr...@maths.tcd.ie
>wrote:
>> Chomsky is well known for writing long, detailed, thoughtful replies
>> to anyone who writes to him on paper.
>To people who suck up to him, or to critics as well? What's his address?
To anyone at all, as far as I know. The only thing that gets a form
letter in reply is a letter about the JFK `conspiracy'. His address,
according to the MIT directory is:
Noam Chomsky,
E39-219,
Department of Philosophy and Linguistics,
Massachusetts Insitute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue 7 Cambridge,
MA 02139-4307
USA
James A. Donald
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:54:24 GMT, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Thank you for stating this. I have been over issues like some of these
> with the likes of James Donald, and I find his combination of ignorance,
> dishonesty, and asinine accusations of totalitarianism apalling.
So says Dan Clore, who originally claimed that the Khmer Rouge were
mild mannered agrarian reformers who had killed only a few thousands
war criminals, until they suddenly became bad guys just before they
came into conflict with the Soviet satellite regime of Vietnam, and
only then, when they were about to become enemies of the Soviet Union
did they suddenly turn into bad guys who killed a million or so.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
eAeVDZhnMnFhFHuh86dg/Tn+UjsjOpRufNDoBLjC
4x67802AevtKuFC2tY13C+rR/crqcyIl//nwgQ6mJ
James A. Donald
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:54:24 GMT, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Thank you for stating this. I have been over issues like some of these
> with the likes of James Donald, and I find his combination of ignorance,
> dishonesty, and asinine accusations of totalitarianism apalling.
To clarify what I said about Dan Clore's position on the Khmer Rouge:
He has repeatedly and radically changed his position on the Khmer
Rouge, but one of the numerous positions he briefly adopted was that
not much killing occurred until just before their change in
international alignment, that they were not mass murderers when they
were aligned against the US, and they were mass murderers when they
were aligned against Vietnam and the Soviet Union.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
5bLjcH7uGRdlcGVkcqtDgk28+59lCyTqIBd2MsDU
42svZgJ0H3DLMRE2FPJEDHU36ktOCKc38xijGzF8l
James A. Donald
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:24:27 -0500, Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
wrote:
> I have read one of Chomsky's books, and I was shocked and appalled
> by the actions of the US as he described them. One thing I have
> learned since then is that to have any reasonably good opinion on a
> historical matter, you need to read more than one source if your
> source is ideologically biased. There are simply so many facts
> that it is possible to give an account using perfectly true facts
> that still turns out to be a distorted picture of reality.
Selective omission is the standard technique for giving people a
distorted view of events in Central America. There are these large
gaps in the narrative. People skip directly from Arbenz's utterly
forgettable land reform to the violent overthrow of his regime by US
armed rebels, thus disguising the fact that the US assisted and
encouraged the overthrow of a Soviet aligned dictator, not a mild
mannered democrat, and they then skip directly from Armas to massive
war crimes in the civil war, omitting the murder of Armas and
subsequent struggle, thus making it look as if the war crimes of the
civil war were to suppress resistance to the Armas's overthrow of
Arbenz and to prevent the mild mannered land reform of Arbenz.
However in addition to the selective reporting that Chomsky employs
for Central America, he also uses, when reporting the communist
regimes in Cambodia and Vietnam, another technique: Lying and
falsification of citations. See my web page
<http://www.jim.com/jamesd/chomsdis.htm>
Chomsky uses both lying and selective omission everywhere of course,
but lying is the primary technique regarding communist regimes, and
omission is the primary technique when reporting conflicts involving
Soviet meddling.
Chomsky has a circuitous and indirect way of phrasing things when he
lies. I analyze his strangely careful phrasing in the above url.
He has a circuitous and indirect way of phrasing things most of the
time, but it gets considerably worse when he lies. I recently
analyzed some stuff he wrote about a topic to a knowledgeable
audience, where he mostly employed mere half truths, and compared it
to what he said on the same topic to a less knowledgeable audience,
where he mostly used lies. The lies were well correlated with
circuitous and convoluted phrasing,.
Convoluted and indirect phrasing is like looking away and blinking.
As Orwell said, insincerity is the enemy of plain writing and plain
speaking. When people start going in circles around what they are
saying, it is a good indication of untruth and hidden intent.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
b5Z//QDv8CKTty8uPkK0HQkOSIF/XhaH7fC8OaHh
4+ywEVs+fufL73y/41bOwu8S6v1LiJUDaeJ+Ldff/
James A. Donald
> overthrew a constitionally-elected government in Guatemala, ushering in a
> reign of terror lasting several decades.
Arbenz's government was not constitutionally elected, and the
overthrow ended a minor reign of terror. It did not start one.
You well know I have presented evidence for both of these quite
uncontroversial facts, and you have presented no evidence to the
contrary other than to repeat unsubstantiated allegations.
The the big reign of terror to which you refer did not follow the
overthrow of Arbenz by Armas. It followed the murder of Armas, and
the violent overthrow of the democratically elected, pro capitalist,
united states aligned, Fuentes, a violent overthrow that had
widespread support amongst the radical left.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
JiFhRCzClUDQhZjX1ULZUlPCvcr+pDV7o+/bwRAc
4HdtuI4VmsfKg/O0uv2RP5lbp4jMIY4mw1+suInsW
James A. Donald
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:24:27 -0500, Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
wrote:
>contradicted him.
For Fason any evidence is good enough as a sign that the US meddled,
but no evidence is good enough as a sign that the Soviet Union
meddled.
> If I have been correctly following this debate, James inferred there was
> a pact between Arbenz and the USSR. You demanded specific evidence of
> the pact, and James admitted he had none. But James claimed it was
> reasonable to infer there was a pact based on what happened. He points
> out that you infer a pact based on what happened without specific
> evidence. He seems to be right in this respect: from what you say
> above, you don't seem to have any specific evidence of a pact, but you
> think it's reasonable to infer that there was one. Thus, if we hold
> James to the same standard to which you hold yourself, James's inference
> seems plausible.
Thank you for this accurate summary. Indeed I am sure there was pact
between Armas and the US, just as I am sure there was a similar pact
between Arbenz and the Soviet Union.
However we really need to keep in mind we are discussing large scale
violence and murder, and the widespread use of torture. We are
talking about university students who had electric cattle prods stuck
up their asses.
We are not debating the date that the martian oceans dried up.
The question is not whether Fason applies the same standard to his
theories as to mine, but whether he applies the same standard to the
former Soviet Union as to the United States.
The short history of the Guatemala is that in the course of violent
resistance to Soviet intervention, a lot of people were murdered by
both sides, that during some periods most of the murders were done by
Soviet aligned people, and that at other periods most of the murder
was done by anti Soviet people, and that in the end the anti Soviet
people did more murder than Soviet aligned people, largely because
they were winning, had more power to commit murder, but that at all
times violent opposition to Soviet intervention had the clear support
of the vast majority of the Guatemalan people, and opposition to
United States intervention never received similarly dramatic support.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
W0YyDucXbXDVljjB6m39ALYmetGc48GGc/9fwdPg
47W9R9wsL9ii6woWfgnCTlpO8WaaenMLoiFkLvzHR
jo...@my-deja.com
> > > These bibliographic entries sound like they might point to
evidence
> > > of an explicit pact, but the entries themselves don't tell us
> > > anything. Was your intention to have us look up these entries, or
> > > do you think the entries themselves or the following paragraph
> > > demonstrate your point? I don't see what you think this paragraph
> > > adduces. It doesn't say anything about an explicit pact between
> > > Armas and the US.
>
> > OK. I admit I have not reviewed those more than 1000 pages of
> > declassified CIA documents. But I have read Immerman's book, "The
CIA
> > in Guatemala" published in 1982. (I had erred earlier when I said
it
> > was written by "Zimmerman." Forgive me, it has been many years.) I
> > read it when it was published, and it was astounding.
>
Kinzer's _Bitter Fruit_ goes beyond there being an explicit pact to
showing that this WAS the CIA/State Dept. overthrowing the government.
Arma's people were basically there to take over once Arbenz capitulated
and to provide the illusion of an invading army while CIA planes
strafed the Guatemalen army.
The only "evidence" I've seen presented for a Soviet connection to
Arbenz came from a book written a _Washington Times_ reporter called
_The Soviet Assualt on America's Southern Flank_*. The connection was
the belated shipment of arms that Arbenz's government purchased from
Czechoslovakia after the U.S. prevented other options of self-defense.
The weapons turned out to be junk. That's IT! You'd think a reporter
imaginative enough to believe the Soviet Union was committing military
agression against the United States between 1945 and the time the book
was written (shortly after the Iran-Contra hearings) would have come up
with something better.
> I have read one of Chomsky's books, and I was shocked and appalled by
> the actions of the US as he described them. One thing I have learned
Which one?
> since then is that to have any reasonably good opinion on a
historical
> matter, you need to read more than one source if your source is
> ideologically biased. There are simply so many facts that it is
> possible to give an account using perfectly true facts that still
turns
> out to be a distorted picture of reality. This can be done by
> selectively picking the facts that suit your picture of the world.
>
> I haven't read Immerman's book, so I can't comment on it. I am just
> saying that there is usually another side to the story. Politics and
> history can be so complex that one person might utterly astound you,
but
> then you will be equally astounded by the opposing thesis if you
bother
> to consider it. It seems like James does have a plausible opposing
> thesis, but right now I could be persuaded either way.
>
He's actually less plausible on this stuff than the _Washington Times_
guy, which I find amazing.
> > Very
> > disheartening to think that the US would destablize any
> > democratically elected government, especially one that was our ally
> > against fascism, just because they stepped on the toes of United
> > Fruit. Now if you are looking for a note, "Dear Castillo, Enclosed
> > is my signature on our pact, some weapons, and a check for several
> > million dollars. The Dulles Brother will be in touch. Love, Ike,"
I
> > doubt you will find it. But what exactly is required?
Read _Bitter Fruit_. It's been a long time since I read it but it's a
great deal more explicit than that, if I remember correctly. Except
that I don't know how much Eisenhower was involved.
>
> Well, James said there was no explicit evidence for a pact between
the
> US and Armas, and you contradicted him. You provided a link to a
list
> of a lot of promising sources, but so far you have not successfully
> contradicted him. If you can identify one particular source that
offers
> explicit evidence of such a pact, you will then have successfully
> contradicted James.
>
> > The evidence
> > is clear: the US overthrew a constitionally-elected government in
> > Guatemala, ushering in a reign of terror lasting several decades.
>
> That statement is too broad to tell us anything about the specific
> subject matter here. The subject matter has to do with pacts--
between
> the US and Armas, and between the USSR and Arbenz.
>
> If I have been correctly following this debate, James inferred there
was
> a pact between Arbenz and the USSR. You demanded specific evidence
of
> the pact, and James admitted he had none. But James claimed it was
> reasonable to infer there was a pact based on what happened.
Except he wasn't being reasonable -- unless you call buying some
worthless junk from Czechoslovakia a "pact".
He points
> out that you infer a pact based on what happened without specific
> evidence. He seems to be right in this respect: from what you say
> above, you don't seem to have any specific evidence of a pact, but
you
> think it's reasonable to infer that there was one.
Why?
Thus, if we hold
> James to the same standard to which you hold yourself, James's
inference
> seems plausible.
>
> > The US also overthrew constitutionally-elected governments in Iran
> > (1953), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973) and other countries.
>
> I'm concerned that you uncriticially accept left-wing interpretations
of
> these events. My memory is rusty, but I am quite confident about
Chile:
> the US did not overthrow Allende. I believe the Chilean military
> overthrew Allende independently of the US. The US was quite hostile
to
> Allende, and indeed (as I recall) considered overthrowing Allende by
> supporting a right-wing ex-military officer named Roberto Viaux. But
> the US's plans to overthrow Allende fell threw, and the actual coup
was
> performed by the Chilean military, not by the US or by US agents.
>
You may be right about that. I'll bet you underestimate the importance
of U.S. actions. But this isn't what happened in Guatemala.
> > The US helped overthrow a government in Indonesia in the late
1960's,
> > sponsored a massive bloodbath there. The US government sponsored
wars
> > in The Congo, helped Motbutu come to power, provied training and
> > hardware to his rapacious dictatorship.
>
> You can gather most of this by reading Chomsky, but I do not trust
> Chomsky's interpretations.
Chomsky, with regards to Indonesia, does not put much emphasis on what
he sees as the POSSIBILITY that POSSIBLE significant actions by the
U.S. was critical in the outcome of what happened to Indonesia in the
1960's. He has been much more interested in the way the U.S.
intelligensia reacted to the slaughter.
>I'm not saying I agree with US foreign
> policy. I am just saying that some interpretations of the US
> misconstrue reality in various ways. One way, for example, is not
> paying attention to details. The US was against Allende, and Allende
> was overthrown, but it does not follow that the US overthrew Allende.
>
> > I have not asked Mr. James *any* questions whcih I am not likewise
> > prepared to answer. I have not accused him of being a "liar" just
> > because we disagree. In truth, being a liar requires that the
> > speaker actually know the truth, which Mr. James IMHO does not
know.
> > His statements are more like the random babblings of a small
child.
>
> He makes himself difficult to argue with, but his posts are clearly
more
> than "random babblings."
>
Maybe. But if he ranted at random on various issues, choosing his
stance randomly, he'd almost certainly be correct more often than he is.
Well, it's refreshing to see that there is such as an honest pro-
capitalist libertarian these days.
>
> I agree that it is quite cynical. The problem is that you seem to
agree
> with interpretations that construe the US as a vicious totalitarian
> empire, rather than as a mere state acting according to its power
> interests.
If that's his position, then he certainly disagrees with Comsky on the
U.S., who sees the state as acting according to its interests.
>
> As an anarchist I have strong moral objections to the state and what
it
> does. But I recognize what sort of institution it is. It is a
> political institution, meaning its interests are defined in terms of
> power. The people in charge of it think about power, and how some
> actions will affect the balance of power in contrast to others. If
two
> states' interests conflict and there is no acceptable means of
> peacefully resolving the conflict, the states will go to war. If hot
> war is untenable, they will use proxy armies, like the contras,
instead.
Are you talking about conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.? If so
you have a naieve view (but also widely-held unfortunately) view of the
Cold War. The Cold War was dangerous for both sides but it's a mistake
to see it as merely a conflict between the two.
> They may well subvert democracy and support all kinds of human rights
> violations: But they are states. That is what they do. Because of
the
> type of institution they are, they act primarily according to power
> interests, not moral interests.
Who are you arguing with? States are not moral agents.
> If we are talking about superpower
> states, we will see this problem amplified.
>
> I think it is right to morally condemn the state. I don't agree with
> the realists in this respect. They either irrationally love the
state,
> or rationally (but, I think, incorrectly) think the nation-state
system
> is better than anything else. But they are right that states act
> according to power interests. States exist in an international
> anarchy--there is no world government. It is a self-help system. If
> the rulers of a state feel threatened, they will use or threaten to
use
> force to protect what they perceive as their national interests.
This
> is how states act. This is how, I think, the US acted during the
Cold
> War.
>
> The leftist critics with whom you seem to agree properly recognize
the
> moral problems with the state's actions. But they are astounded by
> this, because they think the state can and should be virtuous.
Not the libertarian left.
Note that those references and more were on the page that you claimed
did not "have a citation specific enough that I can look it up in a
university library."
Jon Duncan
jo...@my-deja.com
> However we really need to keep in mind we are discussing large scale
> violence and murder, and the widespread use of torture. We are
> talking about university students who had electric cattle prods stuck
> up their asses.
>
Do you have any evidence of this torture and murder stuff that doesn't
come originally from Armas' regime? If not, how embarassing!
Stereotype
wrote:
> --
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:24:27 -0500, Matt <djar...@usa.net.invalid>
>wrote:
>> Well, James said there was no explicit evidence for a pact between the
>> US and Armas, and you [william Fason] contradicted him. You provided a link to a list
>> of a lot of promising sources, but so far you have not successfully
>>contradicted him.
>
>For Fason any evidence is good enough as a sign that the US meddled,
>but no evidence is good enough as a sign that the Soviet Union
>meddled.
>
>> If I have been correctly following this debate, James inferred there was
>> a pact between Arbenz and the USSR. You demanded specific evidence of
>> the pact, and James admitted he had none. But James claimed it was
>> reasonable to infer there was a pact based on what happened. He points
>> out that you infer a pact based on what happened without specific
>> evidence. He seems to be right in this respect: from what you say
>> above, you don't seem to have any specific evidence of a pact, but you
>> think it's reasonable to infer that there was one. Thus, if we hold
>> James to the same standard to which you hold yourself, James's inference
>> seems plausible.
>
>Thank you for this accurate summary. Indeed I am sure there was pact
>between Armas and the US, just as I am sure there was a similar pact
>between Arbenz and the Soviet Union.
How are you sure? Where's your evidence. Since the break-up of the
Communist Bloc, shouldn't the evidence have emerged by now? There is
plenty of evidence of US atrocities in Guatemala, where is the
evidence of Soviet influence?
The problems in Guatemala were caused by what happened as ealry as
1870. Too many people blame one despot or other when the truth is it
all started a lot earlier, and this is not only true of Guatemala
which was a Banana Republic 50 years before communism existed in
Russia.
>
>However we really need to keep in mind we are discussing large scale
>violence and murder, and the widespread use of torture. We are
>talking about university students who had electric cattle prods stuck
>up their asses.
Yes we are, so where in your post does it mention Barrios or Ubico?
Nowhere. Why is that? You talk about the history of Guatemala as if it
all depended on revolution in 1944 and 1954, but completely ignore
what happened before and after.
Let's ignore completely what happened between 1870 & 1931, you don't
seem keen on the causes of all the violence, just who backed who. Lets
skip forward to 1931 and General Ubico. Yes, this is the man who came
to power in 1931, constantly compared himself to Napoleon, militarised
the entire society (including the postal service and school-children),
held an election and won it by 320000 votes to nil, arrested,
tortured, and killed opponents. In May 1944 (just before he was
overthrown) he passed a law that allowed any landowner to shoot and
kill any Indian found hunting for food on private grounds. All this
made him a great friend of the Americans and cemented his friendship
with the most powerful foreign company,the United Fruit company, a US
multinational which was known as El Pulpo (the octopus). It dominated
Guatemalan economic life, it controlled everything, mail, railroads,
ports, most of the land. This control meant they could ruin any
competititors through high freight costs. They were exempt from paying
taxes. Ubico also allowed them to underestimate the value of their
property holdings so they would avoid having to pay property tax. They
bribed officials, they were also the largest employer. It had about
14000 workers, mainly on banana plantations. Unions were illegal, and
the workers were treated as slaves. The workers were permanently in
debt to the company through having to pay extortianate prices for
their basic goods via the company stores. They also had to buy
medicine from the company for ailments caused by the highly toxic work
environment.
And James Donald wonders why there was a revolution? James, I don't
want to ruin your story, it's quite a good one, even if it is full of
blatant lies, lets have some more facts....
The revolution was by the middle class, students and disaffected army.
President Aravelo won 4 times the vote of the entire opposition put
together. All the population was behind Aravelo's reforms. He
explicitly rejected Marxism and the Socialist mentality. He believed
in social harmony, reconciling atagonistic interests and rational
argument. He was a liberal. He never rejected the importance of
private property. He was trying to reform the capitalist system so
that production and the conditions of working majority would improve.
What he wanted to do was have democratic elections, which were never
held under Ubico, he wanted a new constitution, he did not want US
companies out of Guatemala, he merely wanted to stop them controlling
the country, he wanted companies like Pulpo to pay taxes the same as
Guatemalans had to. He wanted to diversify the economic base away from
bananas and coffee, he wanted workers protected through Labour Code.
What he achieved, the average wage rises by over 300%, a universal
social security system and universal health system were instituted,
new hospitals built, improved public hygeine, implemented vaccination
programs for children, rural water filtering, education and sewage
systems, land reform which only affected the idle land of large
landowners. The aim was to convert Guatemala from a modern feudal
economy to a modern Capitalist one, and assist the Mayan Indians to
get out of the dark ages.
OK, forward to 1950, Aravelo step down and Arbenz replaces him (with
60% of the vote). Yes James, we're still having elections here,
something Gen. Ubico couldn't manage during the 30's and early 40's.
Pretyy soon after 1950 it becomes clear to the United Fruit Company
that they can no longer bribe Guatemalan government officials, so
instead they bribe the United States government. "Guatemala is the
only country in the hemisphere in which Communists have penetrated the
inner circle of Government" (US President Harry Truman). Both the
Truman and Eisenhower governments were teeming with people who had
very close interests with the UFC. Thes included Eisenhower, Dulles
(Secretary of State, former lawyer for UFC), Allen Dulles (CIA
director, legal work for UFC), Cabot (Secretary of State for
InterAmerican Affairs, President of UFC), etc etc etc. Not only did
the United Fruit Company own the White House, according to the US, any
nationalist movement in the region was automatically a Kremlin front
for world domination.
From this point on the US information agency stepped up propaganda to
inform the world that the Guatemalan governemtn was a puppet of the
Soviet Union. Covert operations against the Arbenz government begin in
1952 - there is military escalation as the US arms the Honduran
dictatorship and Guatemala attempts to ship in Czech rifles. The US
realised that it had to invade before Arbenz distributed the arms out
amongst the peasants and the workers.
The CIA backed an invasion of Guatemala under Colonel Castillo Armas
on June 18, 1954, with 150 mercenaries paid for by the USA. The CIA
admitted at the time that the entire operation rested on psychological
warfare rather than military strength, there was no way Armas could
overthrow Arbenz with such a small force. It was about creating an
impression that Armas had a huge army + the backing of Guatemala's
neighbours, with also the USA waiting in the wings.
The CIA estimated the chances of success at 20%, but it was premised
on frightening Arbenz and the military from power with a radio station
transmitting from Honduras into Guatemala called The Voice of
Liberation. They transmitted fictitous accounts of battles between the
government and Armas' troops. Every Guatemalan with a radio was
listening, the radio's calls for the army to desert had the desired
effect. The CIA now had two obsolete bombers based in Nicaragua with
which they made constant flights over Guatemala, giving the impression
of a huge airforce. They were shot down after a few days but
Eisenhower immediately ordered another two to keep up the pretense of
a large force. If the population and the army thought the force was
strong, they would abandon Arbenz. It worked.
Arbenz flees to Mexico City on June 27, 1954 and lives there for the
rest of his life. Armas is successful.
One of the first actions of Armas was to brand any form of opposition
as Communist. Through his militias he arrests 2000 "subversives" and
erects concentration camps. He brings back Ubico's torturers and
police force. Thousands of citizens were arbitrarily imprisoned,
tortured and murdered. There was immediate banning of workers and
peasants organisations. He holds election and wins with "99%" of the
vote. 400 people vote against him. The secret ballot was dispensed
with and illiterates were disenfranchised (70% of the population).
Eisenhower tells the US public that Armas had won the election by a
"thundering majority". By the end of the 50's only Haiti had fewer
organised workers in Latin America. The incident of workers being
"accidentally" run over or shot at work reaches epidemic proportions.
It has been estimated that the stae murdered 100000 people between
54-84 & a further 50000 simply disappeared. The US Secretary of State
thanks the loyal citizens of Guatemala who "in the face of terrorism
and violence, against what seemed insuperable odds, had the courage
and will to eliminate the traitorous tools of foreign despotism".
Armas visits Washington and receives a 21-gun salute and a tickertape
parade down the streets of New York, honorary degrees from Columbia
and other Universities. He then returns 99% of the expropriated land
back to the United Fruit Company and retruns to the taxation regime of
Ubico. Out of the 56 seats in the parliament the Communists had only
ever held 4 seats, they were never of any influence in the army or the
police.
>
>We are not debating the date that the martian oceans dried up.
>
>The question is not whether Fason applies the same standard to his
>theories as to mine, but whether he applies the same standard to the
>former Soviet Union as to the United States.
Sure, equally as bad as each other, for every Hungary and
Czechoslovakia there is a matching Chile and Nicaragua. Nobody denies
that, it's called the Cold War.
>
>The short history of the Guatemala is that in the course of violent
>resistance to Soviet intervention, a lot of people were murdered by
>both sides, that during some periods most of the murders were done by
>Soviet aligned people,
Evidence?
> and that at other periods most of the murder
>was done by anti Soviet people, and that in the end the anti Soviet
>people did more murder than Soviet aligned people, largely because
>they were winning, had more power to commit murder, but that at all
>times violent opposition to Soviet intervention had the clear support
>of the vast majority of the Guatemalan people
Evidence?
>, and opposition to
>United States intervention never received similarly dramatic support.
Really? And how is a 3rd world country supposed to defend itself
against the United States?
William Fason
<jo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:862s1o$uvk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > However we really need to keep in mind we are discussing large scale
> > violence and murder, and the widespread use of torture. We are
> > talking about university students who had electric cattle prods stuck
> > up their asses.
> >
>
James A. Donald
On 17 Jan 2000 22:10:35 GMT, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Well, that's the end of [chomsky and company]. Demanding payment will
> filter out all those who aren't already true believers.
Which is of course the purpose.
The faithful will reassure each other.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2VDcF2237eLsrVJeXab3Po4Q+614rXOa8Caq4X/l
4M7Y0ctnS0zS+GZ71pqz1lj/CzhoV7C8GSk949rxJ
James A. Donald
> essentially a communist.
You are spewing forth old and dusty half forgotten Soviet propaganda,
as if these absurd lies were clear and indisputable fact that everyone
knows is true, as if no reasonable person could possibly deny it, as
if only a madman or someone completely ignorant could possibly doubt
this quaint old long obsolete KGB disinformation.
The Soviet derived story that you are regurgitating claims that all
the bloodshed was because the evil US was repressing the masses, who
deeply desired socialism in order to be free of capitalist imperialist
oppression. The obvious flaw in this story is that when the Soviet
Union fell: Hey presto, peace, democracy, and freedom suddenly broke
out all over the place.
That stuff was never widely believed, and was severely discredited
when the Soviet Union fell.
When the Soviet Union fell: Poof, all these supposedly popular
peoples movements vanished away, and there was peace and democracy
over most of Latin America.
It was soon even more obvious than it had been that nearly all the
grave and terrible troubles that Central and South America had been
suffering from in the period 1955 to 1988 were the result of Soviet
aggression, that the primary cause of the bloodshed was that the
Soviet Union had been persistently attempting to remake latin America
into yet another vast and brutal totalitarian state, very much against
the will of the inhabitants.
It was not the masses, it was the commies.
> In truth, my own politics veer most closely
> towards libertarian. I think the ideal would be an extremely small
> government with narrowly delineated powers, respect for property rights,
Yet when you visited Nicaragua, and the masses were rationed, and you
and the Sandanistas were well fed at their expense, you saw that as
simply your rightful due, that your inferiors owed that to superior
people like yourself for your benevolence in protecting them against
the exploitation of capitalism.
The Sandanistas faked many things for the benefit of their guests, but
they did not provide fake socialist equality. Instead they showed
their guests entirely genuine socialist privilege. I find this
omission most striking.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Ii/zOevR8U6R4th6HV1KPe2NH1bjKcQyuUQ586+q
4clI0sC3GKahWIsWwDlN/x4A8epxUpIqBAhC3xQJh
Matt
> Kinzer's _Bitter Fruit_ goes beyond there being an explicit pact to
> showing that this WAS the CIA/State Dept. overthrowing the government.
> Arma's people were basically there to take over once Arbenz capitulated
> and to provide the illusion of an invading army while CIA planes
> strafed the Guatemalen army.
Airplanes cannot take over a government. You should say something more
like "the US provided most of the brawn," or some such. And the
government was not even technically overthrown--Arbenz resigned. That
may or may not be relevant. It isn't relevant if Arbenz was about to be
overthrown anyway, so he resigned--sort of like quitting so your boss
can't fire you. It is relevant if there were other considerations that
led Arbenz to give up.
My impression so far is that there was tension between Arbenz and the
army over the issue of communism, and the army just did not fight for
him. It's not yet clear to me just how the transfer of power unfolded.
Perhaps you can supply more evidence; I haven't seen Kinzer's book yet.
If the reality is closer to Arbenz's government failing to fight for him
than being overpowered by an outside force, it makes more sense to say
his government collapsed than to say it was overthrown.
> The only "evidence" I've seen presented for a Soviet connection to
> Arbenz came from a book written a _Washington Times_ reporter called
> _The Soviet Assualt on America's Southern Flank_*. The connection was
> the belated shipment of arms that Arbenz's government purchased from
> Czechoslovakia after the U.S. prevented other options of self-defense.
How did the US prevent other options of self-defense?
> The weapons turned out to be junk. That's IT!
Regardless of whether they were junk, an arms transaction between
Arbenz's government and a Soviet satellite during a time of increasing
communist presence in Guatemala is evidence, though not proof, of ties
with the Kremlin. It's a rather paranoid argument, but so far it seems
plausible enough to entertain. Arbenz said he wasn't a communist, which
I find plausible, but it looks like he sympathized with communists
enough that he might deal with the Soviets. If he deals with the
Soviets, surely that is a concern for the United States.
> > I have read one of Chomsky's books, and I was shocked and appalled by
> > the actions of the US as he described them. One thing I have learned
>
> Which one?
Deterring Democracy.
[snip]
> > If I have been correctly following this debate, James inferred
> > there was a pact between Arbenz and the USSR. You demanded
> > specific evidence of the pact, and James admitted he had none. But
> > James claimed it was reasonable to infer there was a pact based on
> > what happened.
> Except he wasn't being reasonable -- unless you call buying some
> worthless junk from Czechoslovakia a "pact".
Why would they buy it if it was worthless junk? You haven't explained
in what way it was worthless junk... did the guns not work?
> > He points
> > out that you infer a pact based on what happened without specific
> > evidence. He seems to be right in this respect: from what you say
> > above, you don't seem to have any specific evidence of a pact, but
> > you think it's reasonable to infer that there was one.
> Why?
Is your question directed at me or William? William did not give
explicit evidence of a pact, and seemed to argue explicit evidence was
an undue requirement. He said:
"Now if you are looking for a note, "Dear Castillo, Enclosed is my
signature on our pact, some weapons, and a check for several million
dollars. The Dulles Brother will be in touch. Love, Ike," I doubt you
will find it. "
As I recall, James claimed there was a pact between Arbenz and the USSR,
and based this claim on an inference, not direct evidence. William
demanded direct evidence, yet above William does not think direct
evidence is necessary to make a similar claim. So in this respect,
William is operating on a double standard.
[snip]
> > I agree that it is quite cynical. The problem is that you seem to
> > agree with interpretations that construe the US as a vicious
> > totalitarian empire, rather than as a mere state acting according
> > to its power interests.
> If that's his position, then he certainly disagrees with Comsky on the
> U.S., who sees the state as acting according to its interests.
Chomsky clearly portrays the US as an evil empire. His thesis is that
the communist threat was just a pretext for attacking democracy and
socialist reform in developing countries. The motivation for doing this
is basically capitalist imperialism. Thus he does not say the US acts
according to plausible national interests, but according to a malicious
plan to enslave the world.
> > As an anarchist I have strong moral objections to the state and
> > what it does. But I recognize what sort of institution it is. It
> > is a political institution, meaning its interests are defined in
> > terms of power. The people in charge of it think about power, and
> > how some actions will affect the balance of power in contrast to
> > others. If two states' interests conflict and there is no
> > acceptable means of peacefully resolving the conflict, the states
> > will go to war. If hot war is untenable, they will use proxy
> > armies, like the contras, instead.
> Are you talking about conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.?
That would be an example.
> If so
> you have a naieve view (but also widely-held unfortunately) view of the
> Cold War. The Cold War was dangerous for both sides but it's a mistake
> to see it as merely a conflict between the two.
I don't see what the point of this comment is or how it affects what I
said above.
[snip]
> > The leftist critics with whom you seem to agree properly recognize
> > the moral problems with the state's actions. But they are
> > astounded by this, because they think the state can and should be
> > virtuous.
>
> Not the libertarian left.
Including the "libertarian left." Among a lot of you I think there is a
vague distaste for the state, because you are not running it, but
whenever the state pats its slaves on the head with social programs we
hear a chorus of voices proclaiming this wonderful experiment with
freedom and democracy.
As the "anarchist" Chomsky says, "[government] can be as benign as we
make it." That might be my favorite quote from him, since it reveals
what an utter phony he is, and clearly it supports my point above. Of
course, it wouldn't support my point if we don't consider Chomsky part
of the libertarian left.
> > Thanks for the references.
>
> Note that those references and more were on the page that you claimed
> did not "have a citation specific enough that I can look it up in a
> university library."
The page had a lot of references. I don't have time to go randomly
looking through them until I find what I'm looking for.
--
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
> Chomsky clearly portrays the US as an evil empire.
My impression is rather that he portrays pretty much _every_ state as
"evil empires", but that currently the US is by far the most powerful
state, so their "evilness" matters somewhat more.
> [..] Thus he does not say the US acts according to plausible
> national interests, but according to a malicious plan to enslave the
> world.
The moral judgement is not very interesting so long as the outcome is
the same.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld