Question My question has several facets so please be patient with me. It involves the “Reagan Legacy.” While many promote Reagan as one of the greatest American presidents, I have found information that castes a shadow around his seeming unassailable aura. Why, when his crusade against communism is discussed do we not hear of the ENORMOUS price that was paid with the blood of civilians: in particular the funding of right wing terrorists and despotic dictators in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras? Everybody uses the “Reagan doctrine” in defense of these tragedies (which I have heard to be: support any and all opponents of Communism). However, in my opinion the Reagan Doctrine is totally bogus from the get go. Let me explain, the majority of Marxist and communist up risings and guerrilla groups exist for one reason, because there are inequalities and human rights abuses that are being ignored by the ruling faction. These issues often involve indigenous peoples who are viewed as subhuman by their European descended counterparts. They will not be heard or respected in the current political atmosphere so they wish to change it. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the US to address the human rights abuses and inequalities then to pay the goons to wipe out the dissidents? Because the Reagan Doctrine does not take this into account thousands upon thousands of people died in Central and South America. In El Salvador, it was proven that these subversive groups only wanted change, and that given a comprise they might lay down there arms.
Questions
1. Am I missing something in this whole mess surrounding the Reagan Doctrine?
2. If the US had stayed out of the America’s would:
A. The whole continent have fallen to an oppressive form of communism?
B. The unrest led to comprises like in El Salvador?
C. The unrest led to Marxist/Socialist governments resembling today’s Bolivia, Venezuela and Spain, as opposed to oppressive communism?
Answer You make a number of assumptions that are not validated by evidence or fact.
"the majority of Marxist and communist uprisings and guerrilla groups exist for one reason, because there are inequalities and human rights abuses that are being ignored by the ruling faction."
How did you arrive at this "fact?" Rebellions begin for many reasons depending on the circumstances in a particular country. Your statement is negated by the uprisings that took place in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Poland (to name a few). They all occurred AGAINST Communist/Marxist governments. Violations of human rights may be the catalyst for revolution, but those violations are more likely to occur under Communist governments.
"These issues often involve indigenous peoples who are viewed as subhuman by their European descended counterparts."
This is another sweeping generalization you make with no basis in fact. If you actually read history, you will note that rebellions usually take place in countries where the factions are differentiated by religion, economy, or ethnicity. In Rwanda, the half million people killed were differentiated by what tribe they were in. In Cambodia, three million people were killed by the Pol Pot communist regime, which based their genocide on education and social structure. In the Sudan, in Darfur, religion is the deciding factor as to who will kill whom. Your lack of serious thought to cause and effect is depressing.
"In El Salvador, it was proven that these subversive groups only wanted change, and that given a comprise they might lay down there arms."
How was this "proven?" Compromise is generally the last development that occurs when a dictatorship cannot hold on to power before it is overthrown.
When the Sandinistas were driven out of power, first by violent revolution (again AGAINST the communist government), then by election, prior to their leaving, they changed the laws so that they took pretty much everything that wasn't nailed down (that is an exaggeration, but it is a fact, they legally looted the country before abdicating power).
You dwell on the "ENORMOUS price that was paid with the blood of civilians: in particular the funding of right wing terrorists and despotic dictators in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras..," but seem to ignore the ENORMOUS amounts of killing that occurs by the communist side in these equations.
Try to remember these historical facts: communist governments are not democracies, they are dictatorships. The only way to rid a dictator is to defeat him. Cuba, Eastern Europe, Central America, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Laos, China, etc., etc. Communist/Marxist governments do not allow for their replacement or change.
In Cuba there is a saying that goes "Everything within the Revolution, nothing outside of the Revolution." If you are willing to work within the Communist/Marxist form of government, then some of your issues may be addressed. However, if capitalism, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, or anything "outside the Revolution" is suggested - you go to prison (if you're lucky).
As a communist official said in Poland during the revolt of the workers there when they wanted to share power with the government, "we are not here to share power." That is the essence of a Communist/Marxist dictatorship.
To answer you're two questions directly:
1) Yes, you are missing more than I could go into in a year of emails.
2) The closest answer would be C. They would probably follow the Cuba model. Spain is a Socialist form of government, not Marxist. The difference can be seen in how the ruler is chosen. As you probably have observed, Hugo Chavez will soon have his country declare him "President for Life," because as in Cuba, and as the Communist in Poland said, "We are not here to share power."
