...Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers... Wasnt this The Kerry's diatribe before Congress? They left out Jenghiz Khan! swhitebull - nothing new under the sun - yawn. Where's a trial lawyer when you need one? OOPS!!! He is running with The Kerry. The Kerry's charges? THEY STOLE MY BEST LINES!

BBP, you should be fair. The Sandinistas were no angels. There's a reason why Ortega was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls in 1990, despite Sandinista attempts at stuffing the ballot boxes. I will give Ortega credit in that he stepped aside gracefully, rather than try a Noriega-style tactic of voiding the election and arresting the winners. And I give you credit, BBP, for not falling to the temptation of saying Reagan trained and supplied Osama bin Laden. Mainly because he didn't.

Ronald Reagan did send piles of arms and aid to religious fundamentalists fighting in Afghanistan, who are now plaguing the world with terror today. William Casey in particular, was very negligent in basically outsourcing the entire management and oversight of the war to Pakistan's military dictatorship, which as we've seen was very keen on making sure the most fanatical people got the most weapons. This is because Pakistan wished to use fundamentalism to exercise control over the militant groups, and keep them loyal to its own geo-political interests. Due to longstanding territorial and border disputes with the Afghan people, Pakistan had no wish to see any armed Afghans operating outside its sphere of control, to threaten the integrity of the Pak-Afghan border. But as you can see, the fundamentalist fanatics whom the Pakistan considered a "safe bet", actually had their own grand designs on conquering the world. The Pakistani leadership was aware of these, but didn't really care, as they had their own more important local priorities to worry about (eg. fighting India, subduing Afghanistan, suppressing domestic political opposition groups). Reagan's defenders may say that the price of creating deadly and uncontainable fanatical networks was worth it, just to defeat the Soviet empire. But at least the Soviets never plunged any airliners into cities. One day, when AlQaeda gets their hands on WMD and uses them, Reagan's defenders can truly ponder whether it was worth it.

"As long as it's that good ol fashioned leftist-commie anti-American terrorism it's ok by BBP. So, ya little pinko, summer break is over?" You're pathetic. Attempt to refute the claims of terrible crimes committed by US supported terrorists in Nicaragua instead of flaming me with pathetic insults.

"Reagan's defenders may say that the price of creating deadly and uncontainable fanatical networks was worth it, just to defeat the Soviet empire. But at least the Soviets never plunged any airliners into cities. One day, when AlQaeda gets their hands on WMD and uses them, Reagan's defenders can truly ponder whether it was worth it." The Reagan administration just continued the policies of the Carter administration in regards to Afghanistan. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France) Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76* Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: fundamentalism represents a world menace today. B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

"...Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers... Wasnt this The Kerry's diatribe before Congress? They left out Jenghiz Khan! swhitebull - nothing new under the sun - yawn. Where's a trial lawyer when you need one? OOPS!!! He is running with The Kerry. The Kerry's charges? THEY STOLE MY BEST LINES!" Nice irrelevant rant. Pity you can't hijack the topic that easy.

...Nice irrelevant rant. Pity you can't hijack the topic that easy... In your first post on this thread: Reagan supported right-wing terrorists in Nicaragua and also secretly (and illegally) sold arms to terrorism-sponsor Iran... Seems like YOU were the one trying to highjack this thread, rather than address the issues of who was better capable of dealing with terrorism, Kerry or Bush., which was the content of the ORIGINAL post by me, so dont lecture ME about highjacking. Seems that that was exactly what YOU were trying to do. How lame. Me highjacking a topic which I started seems a bit hard to do - by definitino, since I began the thread, but the twists of logic that third rate countries and their minions will use to slander a great man knows no bounds. Just like The Kerry is trying to do. Get a life - looking at all of YOUR posts, seems like you are the one who is prone to pissant rants and raves. Bottom line is President Reagan is the one who forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy - contrary to your weak claims of internal problems causing its fall - by raping up defense spending which a moribund Soviet economy couldnt even dream in its best wet dreams to be able to match, reagan unleashed Bill Casey to confront the Soviet empire EVERYWHERE in the world - under any and all circumstances. Do we have clean handss? No - and in this case is totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that the Soviet Union is no longer around to spread its version of Hell on Earth. Deal with it. swhitebull - Seems like your warning by SysOps several months ago went unheeded. Yo uare still spouting nonsense. My guess is that your blatant crapolla amuses them, and they only tolerate you cause they need more pinatas on this board.

"Bottom line is President Reagan is the one who forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy - contrary to your weak claims of internal problems causing its fall - by raping up defense spending which a moribund Soviet economy couldnt even dream in its best wet dreams to be able to match, reagan unleashed Bill Casey to confront the Soviet empire EVERYWHERE in the world - under any and all circumstances." ahahahahaha...is that why Reagan signed the INF treaty with Gorbachev? What a tought stand! lol! Tell me, have you ever been to Russia? Well I have. I doubt you're nothing more than an armchair general who has never been outside of the US. Interesting that not even the CIA predicted the collapse of the USSR. You're quite delusional if you think Reagan's misguided defense spending sparked nationalist movements throughout the Soviet republics which caused the collapse of the central Communist Party. It started in the Baltic republics but then spread throughout the SSRs as the power struggle between nationalist Yeltsin and Gorbachev intensified. Non-revisionist history demonstrates that Gorbachev's attempt to reform the USSR backfired on him and eventually caused the disintergration of the Soviet power structure. I guess you knew that already, right?

BBP, I lived in Germany under Carter's administration. Reagan's "misguided spending" made Central Europe feel a lot safer (unless you were a no-nuke Green protestor). Under Carter, the only viable option NATO had was the nuclear card; at least under Reagan's reforms, there was a conventional option if war did break out. I know *I* felt a lot safer, and I lived less than a mile from a SS-18 impact zone. To accuse the CIA of arming AQ is to say that the CIA has a crystal ball at Langely and somehow knew that some of the mujaheddin would decide to take their show on the road after throwing the Soviets out. Osama bin Laden, for his part, steadfastly refused any help from "infidel" Americans, relying on Pakistani ISI money and his own private fortune.

...Tell me, have you ever been to Russia? Well I have... Nasral vborscht, il eh veshschiya. Do you want a medal? or a chest to pin it on?That puts you right up there with The Kerry. And your point is? Since my arm-chair degree in college was Soviet studies, economics and foreign policy, I guess that disqualifies me to understand that important time in the world's history. But you knew obviously know so much more than us mere mortals. ...I doubt you're nothing more than an armchair general who has never been outside of the US... Sui hui chaiy. And that would make you.. a what? An expert at Russian history, right? Or would that be a so-called expert, since you obvioulsy cant see farther than the vodka bottle next to your bedside. .. ..You're quite delusional if you think Reagan's misguided defense spending sparked nationalist movements throughout the Soviet republics which caused the collapse of the central Communist Party. It started in the Baltic republics but then spread throughout the SSRs as the power struggle between nationalist Yeltsin and Gorbachev intensified. Non-revisionist history demonstrates that Gorbachev's attempt to reform the USSR backfired on him and eventually caused the disintergration of the Soviet power structure... No, it started when the United States gave hope to the Baltic countries when Reagan loudly proclaimed that the Soviets were occupying said countries, begain supporting them, along with the Poles, and Soviet resources were stretched too thin to handle the myriad of economic, intelligence, military spending and other assaults. Coupled with the inability of the Soviets to provide for its own people, the Soviet power structure collapsed under its own weight. YOUR revisionist history is like Pavel Checkovs. swhitebull - start actually reading and understanding history, troll, before you are condemned to repeat it as myriad other revisionist wannabees have.