Ronald Reagan is burning in Hell

I can't believe anyone could defend the man, let alone admire or even positively appreciate his achievements or person. Seriously, is there anyone out there who can honestly defend the foreign policy of the United States in central America in the 1980's? He was the incompetent figurehead at the center of one of the most brutal administrations in American history and would've been executed for war crimes if the United States wasn't a superpower. Nicaragua is a case example and a representative one.

To date, the United States is the sole and first country ever to be condemned by the International Court of Justice for state-sponsored international terrorism, due to its funding of Contra terrorists in Nicaragua against a democratically elected Sandinista government. The only crimes of this government was terminating decades of U.S.-friendly dictators and even whilst being attacked by a foreign-backed army, the government did not even close a newspaper, major opposition press (La Pernsa) was still functioning despite calling for a violent overthrow of the government (though it was basically U.S. propaganda), this is the only case in history I believe this has happened.

So how did a self-proclaimed friend of liberty and freedom treat the 1986 World Court decision to pay massive reparations to a country brutalized because it dared not to allow itself to be subjected to economic colonialism? It openly rejected the decision and kept brutalizing the nation till it essentially offered an ultimatum to keep killing and torturing civilians unless the U.S.-backed candidate was elected (which happened in 1990).

Of course this goes without mentioning El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq and Indonesia, all brutal regimes which functioned with the support and praise of the Reagan administration.

>>9

I have seen Fog of War and think it is an excellent documentary and despite despising the actions of Robert McNamara, he is a case example of an astoundingly intelligent man internalizing the violence of an institution. I mean he was roundly criticized by the hawkish side of geopolitics for his apology to the American people in his book 'In Retrospect' but where is his apology to the people of Vietnam, a country still suffering from a war ending more than 30 years ago.

>>14

Not once did I equate Hugo Chavez with Gandhi in my post (I also never called anyone a hick, being ignorant doesn't render you a 'hick'), of course India and Venezuela are wildly different and I never claimed they were otherwise but I was trying to illustrate that disagreeing with or detesting the policies of an empire does not render those effected by such policies, evil or fuck-ups or idiots or assholes as you say.

"...ready to present the case for crimes committed by a few americans against Nicaragua"

Now you show your own ignorance. This already happened and I previously mentioned this in my first post, in 1986 the International Court of Justice ruled in 'The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America' that the United States violated International Law and involved itself in the "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism).

Did the U.S. pay the massive war reparations it was supposed to? Like I previously mentioned it pulled out of the World Court simply because it lost and it basically told everyone to fuck off and resumed brutally killing and torturing Nicaraguans. So tell me... if the U.S. pulls out of the highest court in the world because it lost a single case in which it was ordered to stop terrorism in a relatively unimportant country in its sphere of influence, what chance is there for recourse in all the other countries you and myself mention? Everyone knows they don't have a chance because the U.S. makes its own rules.

And because the U.S. doesn't abide by international law, it gives license to those who use violence because they have no effective alternative.