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.

>>15
I have been paying attention to your posts. If you re-read your post I'm sure you can see what I was talking about precisely.

You did equate Hugo Chavez with the honourable Mahatma in relation to your claim that I was equating criticism of the UK or US with hatred.

You said.
"But by saying for example, Venezuela is fucked up and evil you're essential absolving historical events which have effected the people of the region and have a legitimate grievance. It's like saying India hated British colonialism because they, themselves were fucked up and evil."

Hugo's rants about the US are COMPLETELY different in tone and pure common sense when compared to Mahatma's wise musings. It is nothing like saying the Indians hated Britain. Some Indians of course hated the British and some Venezuelans do not hate the US, but in policy it is clear that the Venezuelan government uses hatred and the Indian government in the 50s did not let hatred influence their policy.

Ok, I accept the fact that USA had some failed policies concerning Nicaragua. However we are looking at the bigger picture as you stated.

"Nicaragua is a case example and a representative one."

If Nicaragua is a case example and a representative one, then it suggests the Reagan Administration and perhaps the entire US government is corrupt, proto-imperialist and idiotic as a matter of policy. However the entire world doesn't revolve around one case example, it is much more complex than that and hand picking the examples you want to show and ignoring all the other facts is trademark propoganda. In the past 4 years Nicaragua has stabilised, it's representative system a year ago succesfully took efforts to reduce corruption in the government and it's gdp per capita is increasing steadily. There are also 100s of other american hating extremists who have plenty of support, but for some reason prefer not to take up their issues with the UN or the public. If the US is imperialist Ortega would not be el presidente today.