• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

Ahem. The Contras did not come into being until after Somoza's death. In the first free election after the Nicaraguan Civil War Ortega lost.:peace

1.Correct, I should have said dictator-friendly Contras.

2. That depends on which election you consider to be "free."

"...At the 1984 general election Ortega won the presidency with 67% of the vote and took office on 10 January 1985. A report by an Irish governmentary delegation stated: "The electoral process was carried out with total integrity. The seven parties participating in the elections represented a broad spectrum of political ideologies." The general counsel of New York's Human Rights Commission described the election as "free, fair and hotly contested." A study by the US Latin American Studies Association (LASA) concluded that the FSLN (Sandinista Front) "did little more to take advantage of its incumbency than incumbent parties everywhere (including the U.S.) routinely do." However some people described the election as "rigged". According to a detailed study, since the 1984 election was for posts subordinate to the Sandinista Directorate, the elections were no more subject to approval by vote than the Central Committee of the Communist Party is in countries of the East Bloc.[22]

33 percent of the Nicaraguan voters cast ballots for one of six opposition parties—three to the right of the Sandinistas, three to the left—which had campaigned with the aid of government funds and free TV and radio time. Two conservative parties captured a combined 23 percent of the vote. They held rallies across the country (a few of which were disrupted by FSLN supporters) and blasted the Sandinistas in harsh terms. Most foreign and independent observers noted this pluralism in debunking the Reagan administration charge—ubiquitous in the US media—that it was a "Soviet-style sham" election.[23] Some opposition parties boycotted the election, allegedly under pressure from US embassy officials, and so it was denounced as being unfair by the Reagan administration.[24] Reagan thus maintained that he was justified to continue supporting what he referred to as the Contras' "democratic resistance".[25]

Interim years (1990–2006)
In the 1990 presidential election, Ortega lost to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, his former colleague in the junta. Chamorro was supported by the US and a 14-party anti-Sandinista alliance known as the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Oppositora, UNO), an alliance that ranged from conservatives and liberals to communists. Contrary to what most observers expected,[26] Chamorro shocked Ortega and won the election. In Ortega's concession speech the following day he vowed to keep "ruling from below" a reference to the power that the FSLN still wielded in various sectors. He also stressed his belief that the Sandinistas had the goal of bringing "dignity" to Latin America, and not necessarily to hold on to government posts...."
Wikipedia

Ortega was elect president again in 2006
 
1.Correct, I should have said dictator-friendly Contras.

2. That depends on which election you consider to be "free."

"...At the 1984 general election Ortega won the presidency with 67% of the vote and took office on 10 January 1985. A report by an Irish governmentary delegation stated: "The electoral process was carried out with total integrity. The seven parties participating in the elections represented a broad spectrum of political ideologies." The general counsel of New York's Human Rights Commission described the election as "free, fair and hotly contested." A study by the US Latin American Studies Association (LASA) concluded that the FSLN (Sandinista Front) "did little more to take advantage of its incumbency than incumbent parties everywhere (including the U.S.) routinely do." However some people described the election as "rigged". According to a detailed study, since the 1984 election was for posts subordinate to the Sandinista Directorate, the elections were no more subject to approval by vote than the Central Committee of the Communist Party is in countries of the East Bloc.[22]

33 percent of the Nicaraguan voters cast ballots for one of six opposition parties—three to the right of the Sandinistas, three to the left—which had campaigned with the aid of government funds and free TV and radio time. Two conservative parties captured a combined 23 percent of the vote. They held rallies across the country (a few of which were disrupted by FSLN supporters) and blasted the Sandinistas in harsh terms. Most foreign and independent observers noted this pluralism in debunking the Reagan administration charge—ubiquitous in the US media—that it was a "Soviet-style sham" election.[23] Some opposition parties boycotted the election, allegedly under pressure from US embassy officials, and so it was denounced as being unfair by the Reagan administration.[24] Reagan thus maintained that he was justified to continue supporting what he referred to as the Contras' "democratic resistance".[25]

Interim years (1990–2006)
In the 1990 presidential election, Ortega lost to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, his former colleague in the junta. Chamorro was supported by the US and a 14-party anti-Sandinista alliance known as the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Oppositora, UNO), an alliance that ranged from conservatives and liberals to communists. Contrary to what most observers expected,[26] Chamorro shocked Ortega and won the election. In Ortega's concession speech the following day he vowed to keep "ruling from below" a reference to the power that the FSLN still wielded in various sectors. He also stressed his belief that the Sandinistas had the goal of bringing "dignity" to Latin America, and not necessarily to hold on to government posts...."
Wikipedia

Ortega was elect president again in 2006

There is no evidence that the Contras were dictator-friendly.:peace
 
Yes, he lost a couple of times and finally won. He appealed to the poorly educated, designed enemies, and promised free stuff.

My housekeeper wept when she heard the news of his election but she now says he's not doing as bad a job as she expected. Others say the same. That only means he is not now as corrupt as he was. Ortega does control any opposition however and will ignore the Constitution when it suits him.

Thanks for the anecdotes.

My point isn't that Ortega is so great (he isn't], my point is that the USA (and other countries] should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.
 
Thanks for the anecdotes.

My point isn't that Ortega is so great (he isn't], my point is that the USA (and other countries] should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.

But other nations were already interfering in Nicaragua, which was the point of the USA 'interfering' also. In fact Iran and Venezuela, under Chavez, were very close to Ortega though I haven't been following it recently.

The anecdote was only to impart the depth of feeling from those whose families were destroyed and their properties lost under the communists. Of course you can read more anecdotes in The Black Book of Communism, one of the most important books of the last century. Unless you do read it you'll continue to have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Thanks for the anecdotes.

My point isn't that Ortega is so great (he isn't], my point is that the USA (and other countries] should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.

Why not? If it's in our interest or it's the right thing to do?:peace
 
Why not? If it's in our interest or it's the right thing to do?:peace

  • Because all nations deserve the right of self determination.
  • Because it is immoral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" when it is not self defense.
  • Because "our interests" are probably the interests of politicians and business interests, not the interests of the rest of us.
  • Because as outsiders we are unlikely to know what is best for others.
  • Because history shows that we are likely to be deceptive, heavy handed, arrogant and violent with our interference.
  • Because it is impossible to predict whether it will be for the best.
  • Because we make enemies when we do it, and that makes us less safe.

In other words, for all the same reasons why no one in our country would want China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.

I support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations. I support limited use of intelligence to find potential threats. I support using force only for self defense or to stop a genocidal situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Because all nations deserve the right of self determination.
  • Because it is immoral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" when it is not self defense.
  • Because "our interests" are probably the interests of politicians and business interests, not the interests of the rest of us.
  • Because as outsiders we are unlikely to know what is best for others.
  • Because history shows that we are likely to be deceptive, heavy handed, arrogant and violent with our interference.
  • Because it is impossible to predict whether it will be for the best.
  • Because we make enemies when we do it, and that makes us less safe.

In other words, for all the same reasons why no one in our country would want China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.

I support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations. I support limited use of intelligence to find potential threats. I support using force only for self defense or to stop a genocidal situation.

Good for you. That's not the way it works. Countries interfere in each other's affairs all the time.:peace
 
  • Because all nations deserve the right of self determination.
  • Because it is immoral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" when it is not self defense.
  • Because "our interests" are probably the interests of politicians and business interests, not the interests of the rest of us.
  • Because as outsiders we are unlikely to know what is best for others.
  • Because history shows that we are likely to be deceptive, heavy handed, arrogant and violent with our interference.
  • Because it is impossible to predict whether it will be for the best.
  • Because we make enemies when we do it, and that makes us less safe.

In other words, for all the same reasons why no one in our country would want China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.

I support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations. I support limited use of intelligence to find potential threats. I support using force only for self defense or to stop a genocidal situation.

You've been sucked in, Sonny. There's not a leftist cliche you missed nor one that was accurate.
 
America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane'

Not surprising. Hell... she sounded like our Chief Diplomat John Kerry. Another subversive.

What might surprise me is if they say, showed support for the troglodytes that beheaded Daniel Pearlman.

The way Obama has been eager and secretly dealing with the Iranians, only for America to be saved by THE FRENCH... you begin to wonder if Obama is unable to contain the Farrakhan-Wright mentoring, and like a bad container holding nuclear waste, the contempt is beginning to ooze out.
 
Last edited:
You've been sucked in, Sonny. There's not a leftist cliche you missed nor one that was accurate.

If you think everything I said is wrong, let's consider the opposite of what I said and see if you like it.


  • No nation deserves the right of self determination.
  • It is moral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" even when it is not self defense.
  • The interests of politicians and big business are exactly the same as the interests of the citizens.
  • As outsiders we know what is best for others.
  • History shows that our interference in other nation's internal affairs is nearly always honest, delicate, culturally and politically sensitive and never violent.
  • It is possible to accurately predict the results of our interference.
  • We make friends with the people in other nations when we interfere in their internal affairs.


In other words, the people of the USA would welcome China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.

I don't support support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations.

I support unlimited use of intelligence operations for any purpose that benefits politicians or business interests.

I support using force whenever it benefits politicians or business interests."

Does that really represent your position?
 
If you think everything I said is wrong, let's consider the opposite of what I said and see if you like it.


  • No nation deserves the right of self determination.
  • It is moral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" even when it is not self defense.
  • The interests of politicians and big business are exactly the same as the interests of the citizens.
  • As outsiders we know what is best for others.
  • History shows that our interference in other nation's internal affairs is nearly always honest, delicate, culturally and politically sensitive and never violent.
  • It is possible to accurately predict the results of our interference.
  • We make friends with the people in other nations when we interfere in their internal affairs.


In other words, the people of the USA would welcome China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.

I don't support support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations.

I support unlimited use of intelligence operations for any purpose that benefits politicians or business interests.

I support using force whenever it benefits politicians or business interests."

Does that really represent your position?

You do far too much guessing.
 
Thanks for the anecdotes.

My point isn't that Ortega is so great (he isn't], my point is that the USA (and other countries] should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.

Every country everywhere interferes in the internal affairs of other nations every day.:peace
 
  • Because all nations deserve the right of self determination.
    Tell that to the communists, socialists, statists and radical muslims. Then get back with the rest of us, rational types.
  • Because it is immoral to kill people, or otherwise interfere, for "our interests" when it is not self defense.
    Right. It's always best to let them kill some of us first. Or somebody else that we need and care about.
  • Because "our interests" are probably the interests of politicians and business interests, not the interests of the rest of us.
    Our politician and our business interests are all of our interests. Like it or not.
  • Because as outsiders we are unlikely to know what is best for others.
    Try telling that to the UN. Then get back with the rest of us, rational types.
  • Because history shows that we are likely to be deceptive, heavy handed, arrogant and violent with our interference.
    History shows and proves we are far more likely to help other nations without any of the stuff you listed. But in what you did list, we generally use that when justified.
  • Because it is impossible to predict whether it will be for the best.
    But it's not impossible to predict what doing nothing cause.
  • Because we make enemies when we do it, and that makes us less safe.
    We also make many friends when we do it making us much safer. Assuming no idiots are running the State department like we've had the last five years.

In other words, for all the same reasons why no one in our country would want China, or anyone else, interfering in our internal affairs.
They do it all the time. Just like all other nations.

I support using diplomacy to prevent or reduce human rights violations. I support limited use of intelligence to find potential threats. I support using force only for self defense or to stop a genocidal situation.
I'm not aware of any American President that hasn't supported diplomacy. So you really don't want to find "potential threats", go figure coming from an -ist. Where's the strategy for any military involvement for a "genocidal situation"?

What caused you to despise America?
 
Our politician and our business interests are all of our interests. Like it or not.

Although we share some common interests with our politicians and large corporations, they have plenty of their own interests that are contrary to the public interest. Politicians want campaign donations and to get re-elected, and most of them will do anything for those goals. Corporations want to maximize profits and nearly all of them will do anything for that goals.

There is a fairly unknown and ugly story behind the USA's foreign policies that many of you seem to know little about. I recommend the book Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner to start learning about it.

"From Publishers Weekly
Is the Central Intelligence Agency a bulwark of freedom against dangerous foes, or a malevolent conspiracy to spread American imperialism? A little of both, according to this absorbing study, but, the author concludes, it is mainly a reservoir of incompetence and delusions that serves no one's interests well. Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times correspondent Weiner musters extensive archival research and interviews with top-ranking insiders, including former CIA chiefs Richard Helms and Stansfield Turner, to present the agency's saga as an exercise in trying to change the world without bothering to understand it. Hypnotized by covert action and pressured by presidents, the CIA, he claims, wasted its resources fomenting coups, assassinations and insurgencies, rigging foreign elections and bribing political leaders, while its rare successes inspired fiascoes like the Bay of Pigs and the Iran-Contra affair. Meanwhile, Weiner contends, its proper function of gathering accurate intelligence languished. With its operations easily penetrated by enemy spies, the CIA was blind to events in adversarial countries like Russia, Cuba and Iraq and tragically wrong about the crucial developments under its purview, from the Iranian revolution and the fall of communism to the absence of Iraqi WMDs. Many of the misadventures Weiner covers, at times sketchily, are familiar, but his comprehensive survey brings out the persistent problems that plague the agency. The result is a credible and damning indictment of American intelligence policy....

Tim Weiner has won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for his writing on vital issues of American national security. As a correspondent for The New York Times, he covered the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon in Washington, and reported on war and terrorism from Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, and many other nations over the course of 15 years. "
Amazon
 
What caused you to despise America?

I don't. But I believe in representational democracy, not in allowing a shadow government to control our foreign policies and actions.

Read post #187. Is that what you believe in?
 
Although we share some common interests with our politicians and large corporations, they have plenty of their own interests that are contrary to the public interest. Politicians want campaign donations and to get re-elected, and most of them will do anything for those goals. Corporations want to maximize profits and nearly all of them will do anything for that goals.

There is a fairly unknown and ugly story behind the USA's foreign policies that many of you seem to know little about. I recommend the book Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner to start learning about it.

"From Publishers Weekly
Is the Central Intelligence Agency a bulwark of freedom against dangerous foes, or a malevolent conspiracy to spread American imperialism? A little of both, according to this absorbing study, but, the author concludes, it is mainly a reservoir of incompetence and delusions that serves no one's interests well. Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times correspondent Weiner musters extensive archival research and interviews with top-ranking insiders, including former CIA chiefs Richard Helms and Stansfield Turner, to present the agency's saga as an exercise in trying to change the world without bothering to understand it. Hypnotized by covert action and pressured by presidents, the CIA, he claims, wasted its resources fomenting coups, assassinations and insurgencies, rigging foreign elections and bribing political leaders, while its rare successes inspired fiascoes like the Bay of Pigs and the Iran-Contra affair. Meanwhile, Weiner contends, its proper function of gathering accurate intelligence languished. With its operations easily penetrated by enemy spies, the CIA was blind to events in adversarial countries like Russia, Cuba and Iraq and tragically wrong about the crucial developments under its purview, from the Iranian revolution and the fall of communism to the absence of Iraqi WMDs. Many of the misadventures Weiner covers, at times sketchily, are familiar, but his comprehensive survey brings out the persistent problems that plague the agency. The result is a credible and damning indictment of American intelligence policy....

Tim Weiner has won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for his writing on vital issues of American national security. As a correspondent for The New York Times, he covered the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon in Washington, and reported on war and terrorism from Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, and many other nations over the course of 15 years. "
Amazon

Not going to waste my time reading a book by an author that reaches a conclusion then writes the pages of his book with any stretch he can come up with. Also, anybody in the know is well aware that any one using Stansfield Turner as a source or writing he was one that was capable of achieving positive results with his ideas and action is a complete and total idiot. Competent reviews of his books are all a person needs to see that he isn't interested in facts.
 
I don't. But I believe in representational democracy, not in allowing a shadow government to control our foreign policies and actions.

Read post #187. Is that what you believe in?

Gotcha. You have no faith in our representational democracy and never have.

Post #187 is just another representation by a person looking for anyway to get people to excuse failure of -ist type governments, at any level he can achieve.
 
I don't know, but after everything I've read, even if the POW letter scandal is not true, she's still a real bitch. I don't see how anyone can defend her actions during the war. With friends like her, who needs enemies?
 
Not going to waste my time reading a book by an author that reaches a conclusion then writes the pages of his book with any stretch he can come up with. Also, anybody in the know is well aware that any one using Stansfield Turner as a source or writing he was one that was capable of achieving positive results with his ideas and action is a complete and total idiot. Competent reviews of his books are all a person needs to see that he isn't interested in facts.

The author did not start with any conclusions. The book is unbiased and acknowledges successes as well as failures. It is equally critical of both political parties and the different factions within the government. It uses the best available primary sources, including many that had not been reviewed by the press before. All sources of information are footnoted. It acknowledges successes as well as failures. But if you won't trust this book, try any of the others that honestly examine the role of covert operations in foreign policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom