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.

>>4

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.

I mean there are dozens of countries which carry out horrendous atrocities against its own people, with or without the support of the U.S. government and we should condemn it regardless, but any country voicing disapproval of the Washington doesn't make them evil or fucked up, in most cases it's actually rational because the disagreement is justified.

But your final analogy is flawed because it requires that we elevate someone disagreeing with your country to forcible sodomy, and that somehow even compromising on these issues is like sucking the offending dick. Even 9/11 wasn't an ass-fucking, it was a stunning atrocity that instantly caused the unjustified murder of thousands but if you want to see what an ass-fucking is, look at El Salvador or Chile or something more current; Iraq.

I think your analogy is more true when reversed and applied to Nicaragua again... the U.S. is ass-fucking the country and is demanding to get ass-2-mouth, all the world wants is to stop getting ass-fucked, but the ass-fucking is actually murder and torture and people want it to stop, as you would too in their position. I mean when has El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Spain, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq or indeed any country which has experienced violent U.S.-backed intervention, when have they ever fucked you up the ass?