From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:33:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.144843.10889@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>>The actions of the Sandinistas cannot be regarded as the actions of
>>a group committed to democracy. Indeed, many of their public statements
>>indicated they regarded elections as 'window dressing' for world opinion.

>I have never said the Sandinista revolution was a perfect 

I didn't say anything about perfection. I simply said that it wasn't
democratic. They had no interest in putting democratic government in
Nicaragua and saw elections as nothing more than widow dressing for
world opinion. Their actions do not compare well with countries which
are democratic.

If you do't like the US, compare them with the USSR. As they transitioned
to their new order, they encouraged opposition parties to form, began
releasing political prisoners, and relaxed censorship. The Sandinistas
did the opposite from day one. Before you blame this all on the Contras,
this was years before there where any Contras; in fact, it was the abuses
of the Sandinsitas which caused the Contras to come into being.

>	1) The wonderful elections in the US after the revolution did not
>	include women or blacks.  As such, our elections were not any more
>	representative than Nicaragua's in 1984 and not too much more
>	representative than non-elections in 1980.

No our fouding fathers whern't perfect. However, by the sandards of 
their day they where far more radical than you realize. In addition,
they wanted democracy (even if they didn't fully grasp all the details)
where the Sandinistas didn't.

>	2) The loser in the revolutionary war was fairly graceful in
>	accepting defeat.  This made it much easier to permit
>	loyalists full participation.  Had the British started a
>	covert terrorist war, I would bet the loyalists would not have been
>	accepted so easily.

Not so. British troops where still occupying New York two years after
the end of the war. In addition, there WHERE guerilla operations going
on for years in the Hudson river valley and in most of Delawhare. This
doesn't even mention the Wiskey Rebelion, Shay's rebelion and a host
of other uprisings.

The Sandinsitas has two years of peace and they used it to crack down
and suppress dissent to their rule. The Continental Congress and later
the US Congress faced over 10 years of war and unrest.

Again, the difference was that the US congress was dedicated to
rule by the people; the Sandinistas whern't.

>	3) The US revolution left most of the power structure intact.

The US revolution made changes every bit as profound as anything the
Sandinistas did; more so. However, this is not valid. Much of the power
was in the hands of the buisnessmen in Nicaragua. They embraced the fall
of Somoza and made it possible for the Sandinsitas to win. 

The power structure was present in Nicraagua, it's just that the
Sandinistas choose to destroy it to better control events.

>	Only the very top was removed.  The Nicaraguan revolution
>	intended to make much more significant changes to remove
>	a feudalist system.  

New York in 1775 was for all practical purposes a fudalist system.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------226 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+