www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Not every one is mourning his loss.

Doesn't seem that everyone is mourning Mr. Reagan or think he is the god-like person many posting here think he was. There were a lot of answered questions about his administration too.

"Since he passed away, American media outlets have drowned the country in nonstop veneration for Reagan as a symbol of devotion to principle. There's precious little U.S. media space for the kind of reporting that Agence France Presse provided a few days after he died: "Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed U.S. intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran. ... Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use."

http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon06112004.html

Personally, I believe that all the problems the US finds itself in right now can be traced back to the Reagan administration. We are reaping what he sowed.

And why wasn't Israel represented?

"Absent from Reagan's last rites were Sharon, who never hesitates to hop on a special El Al flight to Washington in order to extort Congress and the White House to ante up billions in American military and economic aid for such things as apartheid walls, demolition of Palestinian homes, and Israeli squatter settlements on illegally occupied territory. Other no shows at Washington's National Cathedral included Israel's ceremonial President, Moshe Katsav, and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen06132004.html

And here's an article from a Roman Catholic priest in Nicaragua"

"First of all, let me start out by saying that, of course, Reagan is now dead. And I, for one, would like to say only nice things about him. I'm not insensitive to the feelings of many U.S. people mourning President Reagan, but as I pray that God in his infinite mercy and goodness forgives him for having been the butcher of my people, for having been responsible for the deaths of some 50,000 Nicaraguans, we cannot, we should not, ever forget the crimes he committed in the name of what he falsely labeled "freedom and democracy."

http://www.counterpunch.org/descoto06092004.html

Uggh. I hate arguing politics, but nevertheless here I go........

What this gentleman is complaining about is the US support given to the Contras to fight the FSLN government during the 1980s. I am by no means a raving fan of Somoza and the Contras had defects. Neverthless, the FSLN had to be opposed because of its:

1. nation-wide repression, including the repression of all those who would not follow the FSLN program, the seizure and control of all national communications, the arrest of over 35,000 persons and the execution of 2-4,000; the displacement of over 250,000 persons as an intended result of government policy (out of a population of 3.3 million at the time). Even worse was a steady attempt to communize national thought and in particular the education of children (if a government took control of all the means of communication and constantly sought to implant marxism-leninism to me and my children, not permitting any opposition, I would oppose it with whatever means appropriate).

2. direct support for other communist guerilla movements attempting to take power by force in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and alliance in this with Cuba and the Soviet Union.

3. an over ten-fold military expansion to include 350 Soviet-supplied tanks - something no other local army possessed in such numbers.

By the time the 1980s were over, Nicaragua's per capita income was one third that of when the FSLN took over, and the FSLN was resoundingly voted out of office once they were forced to hold and election. I suppose some would just like to sit back and watch as Central America is taken over by Soviet/Cuban sattelites, but given the record of communism after takeover in Russia, China, Vietnam and Cambodia I cannot object to support for an anti-communist group in the country.

We must not also forget that a prominent leader of the FSLN regime was a former priest who advocated to "Liberation Theology", that the regime staged hostile demonstrations in reaction to the Papal visit in 1983, that the regime considered the Catholic bishops there a group of traitors and pro-imperialists, repressed the Church, and even believed that the evangelical protestant ecclesiastical communities were run by the CIA. The Nicaraguan Bishops took a firm and strong stand against the FSLN regime, and in response the regime recruited some priests to from a "patriotic church" like the one in China. [this is not to necessarily say they supported the contras; to my knowledge they had always advocated a peaceful resolution of society's problems]

And as for Mr. Reagan, no one is required to pay any respect for him at all, and an online or TV news pundit can go ahead and refight political battles at his funeral. I still feel Mr. Clinton should have been impeached for clear and convictable perjury and greatly disliked his policies. But nevetheless it's a long-dead issue that I really don't care about, and I would never raise these issues his funeral (but then, I'm not a pundit on one of these gladitorial news-debate shows).

Whew! That's more than enough political talk.

Yet how much do people honor FDR who sold Ruthenian Ukranian people into years of slavery?
No one mentions that. Or the fact that he lied "our boys will not go overseas" to the American people. People forget that too.

The world is imperfect, and yet we try to make it a better place, one step at a time.

The Latin Visitor hit the nail on the head when he described the situation in Latin America. There were no perfect-one-step solutions to stopping the expansion of Communism in that part of the world. President Ronald Reagan found the best (albeit imperfect) stop gap solution. The alternative was the wide and rapid spread of the dreaded plague of the century - Communism.

As part of plan 'A' Eastern Europe was in fact sold out to the Soviets at Yalta but the USA and the allies had little choice because the free world needed an Eastern front to win the war. It was a questioning of partnering with what appeared to be the better of two evils to bring back civilization to the world.

However, it should be noted that from the time WW2 was drawing to a near there were many Americans who wanted to immediately free Eastern Europe. Plan 'B' (the hidden agenda) was to defeat, then rapidly de-nazi-fy, then unite with democratic Germany to liberate Eastern Europe. Five star USA general Patton was perhaps the strongest advocate of the "Liberating Eastern Europe all the way to the doorsteps of Moscow" philosophy.

Many peoples of Eastern Europe listened patiently (as the French once did) to the BBC in anticipation of their 'D-Day', but in this case to rid them of the Russian Soviets and their Godless ideals. Although it never came, there was an ongoing American policy of restoring democracy, freedom, religion, and trade to the peoples of Eastern Europe.

Although there were many American Presidents who helped Ukraine find it's way out of the grip of the Russian Empire (a.k.a. Soviet Union), president Reagen stood out because of his ability to speak honestly and publicly about the plight of Ukraine in the Godless Empire.

For example, he asked in a very public manner, that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church be legalized within the then Soviet Union. When the Soviets stated that "there was no UGCC in the Soviet Union", President Reagen almost immediately met with the then Patriarch Ivan Lubachivsky to remind the Soviets that in fact the Church did exist and that the hierarchs would demanding the legalization of the Church. He did not fear being 'politicaly correct' by 'offending' the Soviets - he just did the right thing.

Yes the United States did arm Iraq to fight 'Iranian Islamic Fundamentalism' which was the immediate threat to world stability at the time. It also armed the Afghanistan militants who were then able to defeat Soviet expansionism into their country and beyond. Again, these were imperfect solutions to the growing threat of Soviet Russian Communism Imperialism. In the end they worked.

The problem we have have now with terrorists is almost trivial as compared to that which we would be in if Iran and the Soviet Union had not been held back.

The injustices in the Central America need to be aknowledged and if possible corrected. But one must acknowledge that if Communism had spread, there would have been a complete loss of civilization as you know it. Just ask the Ukrainians who lost millions of their people to the communist plague. Please don't respond with - "but our form of Communism would have been different, more humane, more just, and.....".

Hritzko

My thanks to Moe - that web site is worth its weight in gold.
I deliberately try to avoid anything resembling secular politics in my contributions to this website. But my talent for self-censorship has just deserted me.
Our Latin Visitor writes:

[Father Miguel d'Escoto] "is complaining about is the US support given to the Contras to fight the FSLN government during the 1980s". Yes, he is. And rightly so. It is contrary to international law to interfere in somebody else's civil war. The US sued England in the international courts for assistance to the Confederacy during the US Civil War.
Latin Visitor accuse the FSLN of a variety of sins, including
"the repression of all those who would not follow the FSLN program, the seizure and control of all national communications,"
Excuse me? The FSLN program was one of political pluralism and a mixed economy - which is why there were still rich people in Nicaragua when the Sandinistas were in power, and why La Prensa, the largest circulation daily newspaper in the country, was able to continue opposing the Sandinistas.

But Latin Visitor continues: "Even worse was a steady attempt to communize national thought and in particular the education of children" Is this perhaps a reference to the highly successful literacy campaign? Sandino himself stressed the importance of teaching people how to read and write. Or is literacy a sign of Communism?
Latin Visitor accuses the FSLN of "direct support for other communist guerilla movements attempting to take power by force in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador"
Horror of horrors! First of all, the FSLN was not a communist movement. Secondly, if Latin Visitor and those who agree with him insist that all effective opposition to the sort of people who were running El Salvador, for example, were communists, the only result will be to make communism look attractive - have we so soon forgotten the martyred Archbishop Romero? Was he a communist? I think not.
Does Latin Visitor seriously believe that the USA does not interfere with governments in Latin America?
"and alliance in this with Cuba and the Soviet Union". There is no longer a Soviet Union, so we needn't bother with it. Cuba is still there - which requires some explaining from those who insisted that only the USSR was keeping Castro in power.


Latin Visitor goes on: "By the time the 1980s were over, Nicaragua's per capita income was one third that of when the FSLN took over, and the FSLN was resoundingly voted out of office once they were forced to hold an election". Does Latin Visitor know nothing of what decapitalization means? Or of Reagan's manipulation of the sugar market?

Latin Visitor then writes: "I suppose some would just like to sit back and watch as Central America is taken over by Soviet/Cuban sattelites" - just what countries are, or have been for the last 14 years, satellites of the Soviet Union?
Latin Visitor exhorts us that: "We must not also forget that a prominent leader of the FSLN regime was a former priest who advocated to "Liberation Theology"." I haven't forgotten - though I did not realize that this was a FORMER priest. I think rather highly of Liberation Theology, and surely it can be discussed without invective.
Latin Visitor claims "that the [Sandinista) regime staged hostile demonstrations in reaction to the Papal visit in 1983", - I would deny that. It was rather John Paul II who behaved with visible and notable hostility both to the government and to the people.

Latin Visitor further claims "that the regime considered the Catholic bishops there a group of traitors and pro-imperialists" - well no one has ever accused Obando y Bravo of advocating Liberation Theology, and - unlike Archbishop Romero - Obando y Bravo was in no danger of assassination by the Right.

According to Latin Visitor "The Nicaraguan Bishops took a firm and strong stand against the FSLN regime" - yeah, and I though Catholic clergy were supposed to eschew politics. "in response the regime recruited some priests to from a "patriotic church" like the one in China." I'm unaware of such a development (and I think that I would know about it), and Latin Visitor seems to know about as much about China as he does about Nicaragua.
Out of respect, not for Ronald Reagan, but for those who wish to mourn him with dignity, I have been carefully avoiding any discussion of his presidency -indeed, until now my one contribution to a Reagan-oriented thread has been a favorable anecdote. People should certainly be allowed to bury their dead in peace. But this diatribe against Father Miguel d'Escoto, whom I respect, and against the FSLN, which in the short time it had managed to accomplish some admirable things, was an offense that had to be answered.
Incognitus

Moe,

The man is dead. Some people here admire him, I am sure others don't. But I think it is pretty classless to post "not every one is mourning his loss" as some kind of passing cheap shot at those who do mourn him.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Incognitus,

You were missing all the fun .

The same repressive regime still exists in Cuba as did during the days of the Soviet Union. People are still sent to prison for writing or promoting any ideas which are not in keeping with the Marxist dictatorship. Religion (Catholic Church included) is very much controlled and censored.

The elite 'good old boy' commies still control all aspects of life on the tiny island. The system is corrupt and bankrupt. Cubans are still risking their lives to get out of there.

Canadians have been vacationing in Cuba for at least 25 years, and the acute changes in society have become evident with the loss of the Soviet's financial support.

Castro has replaced Soviet financing of his regime by: (1) increasing the restrictive tourism trade, (2)Cuban skilled workers are now permitted to work abroad, but must send their earnings home, (3) families are now permitted to receive limited amounts of cash from families abroad (ie: from Florida). In other words, the country is almost totally dependant on foreigners or foreign earnings for survival. Prostitution with foreigners and underground black market actvities is the fourth pillar of the economy.

The country reeks of poverty, sickness, corruption, and repression. The only thing holding it together is brute force (ie: guns pointed at peoples heads).

The day Castro dies, so does the Revolution, and so does the spread of the red plague in central America.

Hritzko

The 1979 Revolution enjoyed support from a coalition of varied interests which shared a common goal- the ouster of dictator Anastasio "Tachito" Somoza Debayle. However, by 1980, the political pluralism began to wane with the Sandinistas' consolidation of control over the government.

In 1980, Violeta de Chamorro, the widow of the founder of La Prensa and its then current editor, resigned from the revolutionary junta because of FSLN dominance in the government. Although the Sandinista government allowed some semblance of dissent, under the state of emergency declared in 1982, the paper was subject to prior censorship. Despite several instances of suspended publication, some mandated by the Ministry of Interior, and some in protest by the paper's editor over government censorship, the paper did continued to operate.

The flap over the 1983 papal visit occurred when the Pope refused to pray for the souls of deceased soldiers. Government dissidents began chanting, "We love the Pope." Their calls were soon drowned out by pro-Sandinista members of the crowd chanting, "We want peace." The Mass was interrupted, and the pope, visibly angered, asked the crowd for silence several times. The entire spectacle was broadcast worldwide and was portrayed as a deliberate attempt by the Sandinistas to disrupt the Mass.

It should also be recalled, before any endoresement of the actions of that administration in this area, that those actions included acts that led to multiple felony convictions of cabinet level officials.

Hritzko comments with reference to Cuba that "The country reeks of poverty, sickness, corruption, and repression. The only thing holding it together is brute force (ie: guns pointed at peoples heads)." That's as may be. But take a guess: what Latin American country has the highest standard of living?
As to sickness, Hritzko should investigate the remarkable state of medical education in Cuba - and the number of students from elsewhere in the Americas - including the USA - taking advantage of it. This despite the refusal of the USA to sell (for hard currency) much-needed replacements for existing American medical equipment.
It isn't just Canadians who go to Cuba - I have good friends in Chicago who visit Cuba at least twice a year. The convoluted transportation that they must endure to evade the travel ban is itself remarkable - surely if Cuba were so horrible, the American government would encourage everyone to go and see for themselves. "Yet still it seems quite strange to hear the State Department say: you are living in the free world, in the free world you must stay."
Incognitus

Dear Friends,

As my friend Cizinec said, shame on me for sneaking back in here - if only for a moment .

President Reagan was truly a liberator of Eastern Europe and he will always be perceived as such.

Sorry if I'm letting my right-wing views out into the open here . . .

I did go through a "Marxist-Leninist" phase in university.

And I did get to know and speak to leaders in the Sandinista movement.

Those who might want to look favourably upon them really don't know what they were about.

What has always amazed me was the North American armchair leftist supporter.

You know the kind - those who portray themselves as politically astute and "socially critical" of an intellectual bent.

That there can still be those, even among people here, who may say favourable things about the Sandinistas - well, I'll try not to be uncharitable.

President Reagan was a great man in so many ways, warts and all, that to say otherwise is a kind of blasphemy - and unpatriotic, if you are either a North American or an Eastern European!

Left-wingism is a failed enterprise in all of its forms, guys. Get over it.

As for President Reagan and the Israeli government, they did have their bad moments.

But I don't know why Moe quotes from an article on this matter that is so clearly anti-Israel to make the point (?)

As for the "problems" of the U.S. government and economy - I really do wish those same problems on Eastern Europe and the rest of the world.

They should be so lucky.

And Incognitus should go live in Cuba and find out for himself what a great system those people are living under.

Unbelievable . . .

Sorry to have had to come back, but when people go after Alice and Ronald Reagan, I can't just sit back and say nothing! )

God bless you all!

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

I have never visite Cuba even though there was a period in my life when I was able to travel there free of charge. I refuse to support a communist dictator.

I'm not sure what part of Cuba you visited, but from all reports I have ever heard, the situation is a little better than dire. It was dire immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of financial support. From my understanding, the only reason they have a medical system is because of FOREIGN DONATIONS. They no longer have the cash reserves or earnings to sustain even a 'Soviet era' medical system.

Let's briefly highlight some of Fidel's accomplishments with Cuba and it's people over the past two generations:

(1) He planted foreign (hostile) missiles on Cuban soil which was within 90 miles of the USA shoreline. The missiles were then pointed at every major city in the country.

(2) He almost caused a global nuclear war because of his need to hold on to power.

(3) His foreign legion's brutal destruction of much of Africa in the name of Communism has left scars on the African peoples and their land.

(4) In Cuba, he supressed all of the churches, free enterprise, and freedom of speach, and replaced it with his anti-Christian, anti-Western dogma.

(5) He spread his 'international communism' into Central America and was poised to do whatever was needed to cause the same damage to those peoples.

(6) Etc.....

We must cut the little bugger off. This means him, his cronnies, and their allies.

The question that you are asking is:

"If free travel was allowed to the Soviet Union after the 1960's (without being branded a communist) and to China after President Nixon made it possible to go there in the early 1970's, then why is Cuba restricted to USA citizens ?"

Because we can do a better job with Cuba, than we did with the Soviet Union or China.

We must not let the communists remain in power as we did when the Soviet. The only way to do this is by creating enough economic pressure / tension within the country that the people will want to rise up and overthrow the ruling elites when the time comes (ie: 5 minutes after his death is announced).

There must be a complete purging of the ruling commie elites and their cronnies. We can't give them the opportunity of morphing in to oligarchs who will cause just as much destruction to the population.

Eastern Europe is a good example of what we do not want to see happend immediately after the fall of communism. We have learned from our mistakes and can do a better job with Cuba.

Democracy, pluralism, and and a true market economy will come to the island within one years of Fidel's death if we hold the course. Feeding Fidel and his cronnies with western currency so that they can be rewarded for their longtime oppression of their peoples, the peoples of Africa, and the near nuclear global destruction of this planet is just not an option.

Hritzko

A "dialogue of the deaf" on politics doesn't belong on this website, and I don't really consider that I have any vocation to spend scads of time on such a topic with people who are impervious to any point of view other than their own. So I beg to be excused from further comment.
Incognitus

I know I'm walking straight into a mine field now and will probably be accused of being "an Evil commie-friend", but anyway...

As most things in this world this issue is neighter black nor white.

Cuba has made some great achievements since the revolution, such as free health care and free education, unheard of in most of Latin America.

I would rathar grow up in Communist-Cuba than in one of the slums of the free countries of Latin America.

However, this cannot be used to excuse the political opression in Cuba. After all some countries manage to have both free health care and education AND democracy and political freedom.

Cuba is a dictatorship. Castro is a tyrant.

BUT, a blockade is not the way to overthrow Castro. It simply isn't working. The blockade has lasted for 40 years. Castro has been in power for 40 years.

The only thing the blockade accomplishes is to give Fidel Castro something to use in his propaganda, something to blame the terrible economic and social situation in Cuba on.

Christian