10 Things Conservatives Don't Want You to Know About Reagan

Byrnzie

prfctlefts wrote:

I swear I think you have a hard on for any thing you can find that sheds a negative light on America or our gov. At least Regan would admit when he was wrong. And where do you live ? China :roll: Now there's a country thats a great roll model when it comes to human rights ,

Nice way of avoiding any of the points raised.

Byrnzie

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

Byrnzie

mikepegg44 wrote:

Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.

Cosmo

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.

...
What? You mean like 'making deals with terrorists' in Iran order to fund terrorists in El Salvador and Nicaragua?
And again... Mujahadeen were specifically called 'Freedom Fighters'. Freedom fighters that were being lead in small groups by people, including Usama Bin Laden. The great irony is the 'Hit and Run' tactics that were taught to them by us and perfected against Soviet Armor in Afghanistan were used against American Armor in Iraq.
'The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend'. How many times did you heard shitheads repeat that line in Afghanistan in 2002?

VINNY GOOMBA

Byrnzie wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Reagan's biggest fault was deficit spending in my mind

Yeah, that sure does eclipse the genocide in Latin America where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered and raped by Reagan backed death squads.

I am sure that with the training given to them...Ronald decided it was best to have all those people killed and then ordered the killing and raping of all those people. You seem rather intelligent, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree from now on and just not bother to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog because it seems like you just want everyone to realize how much you despise the current (or any for that matter) government.

Byrnzie

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?

I read about years ago in something about the 60's San Francisco scene. I'm sure you could find it. I know he either said they should be shot on the spot, or executed.

Byrnzie

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am sure that with the training given to them...Ronald decided it was best to have all those people killed and then ordered the killing and raping of all those people. You seem rather intelligent, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree from now on and just not bother to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog because it seems like you just want everyone to realize how much you despise the current (or any for that matter) government.

I didn't say he ordered them killed. But the Contra's were trained and armed by the C.I.A with the direct approval of the President - albeit covertly, and illegally - and when news of the massacres emerged the training and funding increased, and Reagan tried to have any investigation silenced. He was therefore complicit in mass rape, and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Maybe you think he shouldn't be despised for that, so we'll agree to disagree.

Byrnzie

Reagan and Guatemala's Death Files

By Robert Parry
http://www.consortiumnews.com/052699a1.html

Ronald Reagan's election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America. After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems. The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.

In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins" of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala. The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan's White House.

Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s. Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore. When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts. At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war. The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s. Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages. "The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages...are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded. The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

Besides carrying out murder and "disappearances," the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found. The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people," he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

The report did not single out culpable individuals either in Guatemala or the United States. But the American official most directly responsible for renewing U.S. military aid to Guatemala and encouraging its government during the 1980s was President Reagan.

Reagan vs. Human Rights

After his election, Reagan pushed aggressively to overturn an arms embargo imposed on Guatemala by President Carter because of the military's wretched human rights record. Reagan saw bolstering the Guatemalan army as part of a regional response to growing leftist insurgencies. Reagan pitched the conflicts as Moscow's machinations for surrounding and conquering the United States.

The president's chief concern about the recurring reports of human rights atrocities was to attack and discredit the information. Sometimes personally and sometimes through surrogates, Reagan denigrated the human rights investigators and journalists who disclosed the slaughters. Typical of these attacks was an analysis prepared by Reagan's appointees at the U.S. embassy in Guatemala. The paper was among those recently released by the Clinton administration to assist the Guatemalan truth commission's investigation. Dated Oct. 22, 1982, the analysis concluded "that a concerted disinformation campaign is being waged in the U.S. against the Guatemalan government by groups supporting the communist insurgency in Guatemala."

The report claimed that "conscientious human rights and church organizations," including Amnesty International, had been duped by the communists and "may not fully appreciate that they are being utilized."

"The campaign's object is simple: to deny the Guatemalan army the weapons and equipment needed from the U.S. to defeat the guerrillas," the analysis declared. "If those promoting such disinformation can convince the Congress, through the usual opinion-makers -- the media, church and human rights groups -- that the present GOG [government of Guatemala] is guilty of gross human rights violations they know that the Congress will refuse Guatemala the military assistance it needs.

"Those backing the communist insurgency are betting on an application, or rather misapplication, of human rights policy so as to damage the GOG and assist themselves."

Reagan personally picked up this theme of a falsely accused Guatemalan military. During a swing through Latin America, Reagan discounted the mounting reports of hundreds of Maya villages being eradicated. On Dec. 4, 1982, after meeting with Guatemala's dictator, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, Reagan hailed the general as "totally dedicated to democracy." Reagan declared that Rios Montt's government had been "getting a bum rap."

But the newly declassified U.S. government records reveal that Reagan's praise -- and the embassy analysis -- flew in the face of corroborated accounts from U.S. intelligence. Based on its own internal documents, the Reagan administration knew that the Guatemalan military indeed was engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against the Mayans.According to these "secret" cables, the CIA was confirming Guatemalan government massacres in 1981-82 even as Reagan was moving to loosen the military aid ban.

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said. According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

Apparently confident of Reagan's sympathies, the Guatemalan government continued its political repression without apology. According to a State Department cable on Oct. 5, 1981, Guatemalan leaders met with Reagan's roving ambassador, retired Gen. Vernon Walters, and left no doubt about their plans. Guatemala's military leader, Gen. Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia, "made clear that his government will continue as before -- that the repression will continue. He reiterated his belief that the repression is working and that the guerrilla threat will be successfully routed."

Human rights groups saw the same picture. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission released a report on Oct. 15, 1981, blaming the Guatemalan government for "thousands of illegal executions." [WP, Oct. 16, 1981] But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods" prompted and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Yet, even as these rationalizations were presented to the American people, U.S. agencies continued to pick up clear evidence of government-sponsored massacres. One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province. "The commanding officers of the units involved have been instructed to destroy all towns and villages which are cooperating with the Guerrilla Army of the Poor [known as the EGP] and eliminate all sources of resistance," the report stated. "Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed." When the army encountered an empty village, it was "assumed to have been supporting the EGP, and it is destroyed. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of refugees in the hills with no homes to return to. ..."

"The army high command is highly pleased with the initial results of the sweep operation, and believes that it will be successful in destroying the major EGP support area and will be able to drive the EGP out of the Ixil Triangle. ... The well documented belief by the army that the entire Ixil Indian population is pro-EGP has created a situation in which the army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and non-combatants alike."

In March 1982, Gen. Rios Montt seized power. An avowed fundamentalist Christian, he immediately impressed Washington. Reagan hailed Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity." By July 1982, however, Rios Montt had begun a new scorched-earth campaign called his "rifles and beans" policy. The slogan meant that pacified Indians would get "beans," while all others could expect to be the target of army "rifles". In October, he secretly gave carte blanche to the feared "Archivos" intelligence unit to expand "death squad" operations. Based at the Presidential Palace, the "Archivos" masterminded many of Guatemala's most notorious assassinations.

The U.S. embassy was soon hearing more accounts of the army conducting Indian massacres. On Oct, 21, 1982, one cable described how three embassy officers tried to check out some of these reports but ran into bad weather and canceled the inspection. Still, this cable put the best possible spin on the situation. Though unable to check out the massacre reports, the embassy officials did "reach the conclusion that the army is completely up front about allowing us to check alleged massacre sites and to speak with whomever we wish." The next day, the embassy fired off its analysis that the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist-inspired "disinformation campaign," a claim embraced by Reagan with his "bum rap" comment in December.

On Jan. 7, 1983, Reagan lifted the ban on military aid to Guatemala and authorized the sale of $6 million in military hardware. Approval covered spare parts for UH-1H helicopters and A-37 aircraft used in counterinsurgency operations. Radios, batteries and battery charges were also in package. State Department spokesman John Hughes said political violence in the cities had "declined dramatically" and that rural conditions had improved too.

In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies. CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the "Archivos" in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."

Despite these grisly facts on the ground, the annual State Department human rights survey praised the supposedly improved human rights situation in Guatemala. "The overall conduct of the armed forces had improved by late in the year" 1982, the report stated.

A different picture -- far closer to the secret information held by the U.S. government -- was coming from independent human rights investigators. On March 17, 1983, Americas Watch representatives condemned the Guatemalan army for human rights atrocities against the Indian population. New York attorney Stephen L. Kass said these findings included proof that the government carried out "virtually indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of any farm regarded by the army as possibly supportive of guerrilla insurgents."

Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]

Publicly, however, senior Reagan officials continued to put on a happy face. On June 12, 1983, special envoy Richard B. Stone praised "positive changes" in Rios Montt's government. But Rios Montt's vengeful Christian fundamentalism was hurtling out of control, even by Guatemalan standards. In August 1983, Gen. Oscar Mejia Victores seized power in another coup.Despite the power shift, Guatemalan security forces continued to act with impunity.

When three Guatemalans working for the U.S. Agency for International Development were slain in November 1983, U.S. Ambassador Frederic Chapin suspected that "Archivos" hit squads were sending a message to the United States to back off even the mild pressure for human rights improvements. In late November, in a brief show of displeasure, the administration postponed the sale of $2 million in helicopter spare parts. The next month, however, Reagan sent the spare parts.

In 1984, Reagan succeeded, too, in pressuring Congress to approve $300,000 in military training for the Guatemalan army. By mid-1984, Chapin, who had grown bitter about the army's stubborn brutality, was gone, replaced by a far-right political appointee named Alberto Piedra, who was all for increased military assistance to Guatemala. In January 1985, Americas Watch issued a report observing that Reagan's State Department "is apparently more concerned with improving Guatemala's image than in improving its human rights."

According to the newly declassified U.S. records, the Guatemalan reality included torture out of the Middle Ages. A Defense Intelligence Agency cable reported that the Guatemalan military used an air base in Retalhuleu during the mid-1980s as a center for coordinating the counterinsurgency campaign in southwest Guatemala. At the base, pits were filled with water to hold captured suspects. "Reportedly there were cages over the pits and the water level was such that the individuals held within them were forced to hold on to the bars in order to keep their heads above water and avoid drowning," the DIA report stated. Later, the pits were filled with concrete to eliminate the evidence.

The Guatemalan military used the Pacific Ocean as another dumping spot for political victims, according to the DIA report. Bodies of insurgents tortured to death and of live prisoners marked for "disappearance" were loaded on planes that flew out over the ocean where the soldiers would shove the victims into the water.

The history of the Retalhuleu death camp was uncovered by accident in the early 1990s, the DIA reported on April 11, 1994. A Guatemalan officer wanted to let soldiers cultivate their own vegetables on a corner of the base. But the officer was taken aside and told to drop the request "because the locations he had wanted to cultivate were burial sites that had been used by the D-2 [military intelligence] during the mid-eighties."

History Falsified

Guatemala, of course, was not the only Central American country where Reagan and his administration supported brutal counterinsurgency operations -- and then sought to cover up the bloody facts.

Reagan's falsification of the historical record was a hallmark of the conflicts in El Salvaodor and Nicaragua as well. In one case, Reagan personally lashed out at an individual human rights investigator named Reed Brody, a New York lawyer who had collected affidavits from more than 100 witnesses to atrocities carried out by the U.S.-supported contras in Nicaragua. Angered by the revelations about his pet "freedom-fighters," Reagan denounced Brody in a speech on April 15, 1985. The president called Brody "one of dictator [Daniel] Ortega's supporters, a sympathizer who has openly embraced Sandinismo."

Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua. In his memoirs, Clarridge recalled that "President Reagan pulled me aside and asked, 'Dewey, can't you get those vandals of yours to do this job.'" [See Clarridge's A Spy for All Seasons.]

To conceal the truth about the war crimes of Central America, Reagan also authorized a systematic program of distorting information and intimidating American journalists. Called "public diplomacy," the project was run by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who was assigned to the National Security Council staff. The explicit goal of the operation was to manage U.S. "perceptions" of the wars in Central America. The project's key operatives developed propaganda "themes," selected "hot buttons" to excite the American people, cultivated pliable journalists who would cooperate and bullied reporters who wouldn't go along.

The best-known attacks were directed against New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing Salvadoran army massacres of civilians, including the slaughter of more than 800 men, women and children in El Mozote in December 1981. But Bonner was not alone. Reagan's operatives pressured scores of reporters and their editors in an ultimately successful campaign to minimize information about these human rights crimes reaching the American people. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History.] The tamed reporters, in turn, gave the administration a far freer hand to pursue its anticommunist operations throughout Central America.

Despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and now-corroborated accounts of massacres and genocide, not a single senior military officer in Central America was held accountable for the bloodshed. The U.S. officials who sponsored and encouraged these war crimes not only escaped any legal judgment, but remained highly respected figures in Washington. Reagan has been honored as few recent presidents have. The journalists who played along by playing down the atrocities -- the likes of Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -- saw their careers skyrocket, while those who told the truth suffered severe consequences. Given that history, it was not surprising that the Guatemalan truth report was treated as a one-day story.

The major American newspapers did cover the findings. The New York Times made it the lead story. The Washington Post played it inside on page A19. Both cited the troubling role of the CIA and other U.S. government agencies in the Guatemalan tragedy. But no U.S. official was held accountable by name. On March 1, 1999, a strange Washington Post editorial addressed the findings, but did not confront them. One of its principal points seemed to be that President Carter's military aid cut-off to Guatemala was to blame. The editorial argued that the arms embargo removed "what minimal restraint even a feeble American presence supplied." The editorial made no reference to the 1980s and added only a mild criticism of "the CIA [because it] still bars the public from the full documentation." Then, with no apparent sense of irony, the editorial ended by stating: "We need our own truth commission."

During a visit to Central America, on March 10, President Clinton apologized for the past U.S. support of right-wing regimes in Guatemala.> "For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake," Clinton said. [WP, March 11, 1999] But the sketchy apology appears to be all the Central Americans can expect from El Norte.

Back in Washington, Ronald Reagan remains a respected icon, not a disgraced war criminal. His name is still honored, attached to National Airport and a new federal building. A current GOP congressional initiative would chisel his face into Mount Rushmore. Meanwhile, in the Balkans and in Africa, the United States is sponsoring international tribunals to arrest and to try human rights violators -- and their political patrons -- for war crimes.

whygohome

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I think conservatives have a very romantic view of Regan for a lot of what he stood for BEFORE he got elected. Go back and review his old speeches in the 70s, and he sounds much closer to a true libertarian-conservative than he turned out to be.

When Reagan was governor of California he declared that anyone found smoking pot should be executed.

WOW. That's a strong statement-- I've never heard this before. Is there video of him saying this, or is it in print somewhere?

Reagan is quoted as saying this: “I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast” This is just as stupid as saying someone should be shot.

"Casual drug users should be taken out and shot" - Darryl Gates Head of Los Angeles Police Department United States Senate Judiciary Committee

"When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point." - Barack Obama

"Now, like, I'm President. It would be pretty hard for some drug guy to come into the White House and start offering it up, you know? ... I bet if they did, I hope I would say, 'Hey, get lost. We don't want any of that.'" - George W. Bush

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!
o George Washington in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon (1794), The Writings of George Washington, Volume 33, page 270 (Library of Congress)

You bet I did -— and I enjoyed it.
o Michael Bloomberg - New York City Mayor, when asked if he had ever smoked marijuana.

A reliable source : http://www.bakedlife.com/2008/12/top-10 ... uotes.html
http://michiganweed.org/top-10-marijuana-quotes-ever/

Byrnzie

whygohome wrote:

"Casual drug users should be taken out and shot" - Darryl Gates Head of Los Angeles Police Department United States Senate Judiciary Committee

Ah, my mistake. It was Daryl Gates, not Reagan - Come to think of it, I remember reading about Reagan sending troops into Berkeley and threatening to take over the Height-Ashbury:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rea ... non50_69-1
Reagan was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday."[70][71] Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks in order to crack down on the protesters.[70]

National Guard called in response to student protests at UC-Berkeley: 1969: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68j0I9_gyCA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park
'...Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops — ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty.[12] [Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. - http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... agan.shtml]The Berkeley City Council voted 8–1 against the decision to occupy their city,[20][22] however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters skittling along the street toward any group of more than two people together. ."[17] On Wednesday, 21 May 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the university campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.[18][20]

During the People's Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protesters from planting flowers, shrubs, or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD.[18] A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence...'

whygohome

Byrnzie wrote:

whygohome wrote:

"Casual drug users should be taken out and shot" - Darryl Gates Head of Los Angeles Police Department United States Senate Judiciary Committee

Ah, my mistake. It was Daryl Gates, not Reagan - Come to think of it, I remember reading about Reagan sending troops into Berkeley and threatening to take over the Height-Ashbury:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rea ... non50_69-1
Reagan was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday."[70][71] Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks in order to crack down on the protesters.[70]

National Guard called in response to student protests at UC-Berkeley: 1969: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68j0I9_gyCA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park
'...Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops — ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty.[12] [Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. - http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... agan.shtml]The Berkeley City Council voted 8–1 against the decision to occupy their city,[20][22] however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters skittling along the street toward any group of more than two people together. ."[17] On Wednesday, 21 May 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the university campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.[18][20]

During the People's Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protesters from planting flowers, shrubs, or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD.[18] A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence...'

I wish I could have been at those protests. Anyone feel like protesting with me at 85 Broad St, NY, NY? Or 8 Trinity Pl, NY, NY?

I kid, I kid...............

Byrnzie

whygohome wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

whygohome wrote:

"Casual drug users should be taken out and shot" - Darryl Gates Head of Los Angeles Police Department United States Senate Judiciary Committee

Ah, my mistake. It was Daryl Gates, not Reagan - Come to think of it, I remember reading about Reagan sending troops into Berkeley and threatening to take over the Height-Ashbury:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rea ... non50_69-1
Reagan was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday."[70][71] Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks in order to crack down on the protesters.[70]

National Guard called in response to student protests at UC-Berkeley: 1969: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68j0I9_gyCA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park
'...Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops — ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty.[12] [Some of these guardsmen were even Cal students. At least one young man had participated in the riots, been shot at by police, gotten patched up, and then returned to his dorm to find a notice to report for guard duty. - http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... agan.shtml]The Berkeley City Council voted 8–1 against the decision to occupy their city,[20][22] however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters skittling along the street toward any group of more than two people together. ."[17] On Wednesday, 21 May 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the university campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.[18][20]

During the People's Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protesters from planting flowers, shrubs, or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD.[18] A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence...'

I wish I could have been at those protests. Anyone feel like protesting with me at 85 Broad St, NY, NY? Or 8 Trinity Pl, NY, NY?

I kid, I kid...............

I'd love to slip the worlds leaders some LSD - would be interesting if someone at the U.N could spike their water. That's one U.N session I'd sit up and watch. Imagine 50 or more of the worlds leaders tripping in a circle...then again, they are just politicians - the most unimaginative breed of human ever produced - so maybe it wouldn't be so interesting afterall. The dosage would have to be high to make it interesting - slip the fuckers some micro-dots.

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am sure that with the training given to them...Ronald decided it was best to have all those people killed and then ordered the killing and raping of all those people. You seem rather intelligent, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree from now on and just not bother to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog because it seems like you just want everyone to realize how much you despise the current (or any for that matter) government.

I didn't say he ordered them killed. But the Contra's were trained and armed by the C.I.A with the direct approval of the President - albeit covertly, and illegally - and when news of the massacres emerged the training and funding increased, and Reagan tried to have any investigation silenced. He was therefore complicit in mass rape, and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Maybe you think he shouldn't be despised for that, so we'll agree to disagree.

well, I guess I was answering the question in regards to what conservatives wouldn't want you to know. ALL high profile leaders have things in their careers that are spotty at best and horrible at worst. But Robert Barry has a hard on for Reagan and it comes through in the no less than 5 articles bashing him and blaming him for one thing or another on the front page of the link you posted. I am not discounting what he writes, but if he was truly independent wouldn't he have one good thing to say about Reagan's presidency? like leading us out of a terrible recession with inflation out of control? lowering the tax burden of the bottom 90%...anything? I realize you don't like anything he did, but credit where credit is due is important to a real discussion. Let me ask you this...are the generals and the soldiers who ACTUALLY committed the atrocities at all responsible? or was it simply the war criminal Reagan who was completely and totally responsible? I don't know much about Latin America in the 1980's and am certainly interested in learning more, any good books on the subject you recommend

Byrnzie

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you this...are the generals and the soldiers who ACTUALLY committed the atrocities at all responsible? or was it simply the war criminal Reagan who was completely and totally responsible?

Well, the "I was just following orders" excuse was made redundant at the Neuremberg trials if I'm not mistaken, so I'd say they are certainly responsible.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't know much about Latin America in the 1980's and am certainly interested in learning more, any good books on the subject you recommend

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies: http://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Illusio ... 764&sr=8-1

Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism: http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Workshop- ... d_sim_b_16

jg1988

Byrnzie why dont you write a dissertation on your wealth of knowledge?

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you this...are the generals and the soldiers who ACTUALLY committed the atrocities at all responsible? or was it simply the war criminal Reagan who was completely and totally responsible?

Well, the "I was just following orders" excuse was made redundant at the Neuremberg trials if I'm not mistaken, so I'd say they are certainly responsible.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't know much about Latin America in the 1980's and am certainly interested in learning more, any good books on the subject you recommend

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies: http://www.amazon.com/Necessary-Illusio ... 764&sr=8-1

Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism: http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Workshop- ... d_sim_b_16

thanks i will check them out

Byrnzie

jg1988 wrote:

Byrnzie why dont you write a dissertation on your wealth of knowledge?

For who?

WaveCameCrashin

I take it this one of those things that all the Reagan haters don't want you to know about. :?



The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100-383, title I, August 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 904, 50a U.S.C. § 1989b et seq.) is a United States federal law that granted reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been interned by the United States government during World War II. The act was sponsored by California's Democratic Congressman Norman Mineta, an internee as a child, and Wyoming's Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson, who first met Mineta while visiting an internment camp. The third co-sponsor was California Senator Pete Wilson, seen in the picture to the right. The bill was supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress, while the majority of Republicans voted against it. The act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

The act granted each surviving internee about US$20,000 in compensation, with payments beginning in 1990. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" as opposed to genuine legitimacy.[1]

Because the law was restricted to American citizens or legal permanent residents, the ethnic Japanese that had been taken from their homes in Latin America (mostly from Peru) were not covered in the reparations, regardless of whether, after the war, they remained in the United States, returned to Latin America, or were deported to Japan. In 1996, Carmen Mochizuki filed a class-action lawsuit[2], and won a settlement of around $5,000 per person to those eligible from what was left of the funds from the CLA. 145 of those affected were able to receive the $5,000 settlement before the funds ran out. In 1999, funds were approved for the attorney general to pay out to the rest of the claimants.[3]

jg1988

prfctlefts wrote:

I take it this one of those things that all the Reagan haters don't want you to know about. :?



The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100-383, title I, August 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 904, 50a U.S.C. § 1989b et seq.) is a United States federal law that granted reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been interned by the United States government during World War II. The act was sponsored by California's Democratic Congressman Norman Mineta, an internee as a child, and Wyoming's Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson, who first met Mineta while visiting an internment camp. The third co-sponsor was California Senator Pete Wilson, seen in the picture to the right. The bill was supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress, while the majority of Republicans voted against it. The act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

The act granted each surviving internee about US$20,000 in compensation, with payments beginning in 1990. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" as opposed to genuine legitimacy.[1]

Because the law was restricted to American citizens or legal permanent residents, the ethnic Japanese that had been taken from their homes in Latin America (mostly from Peru) were not covered in the reparations, regardless of whether, after the war, they remained in the United States, returned to Latin America, or were deported to Japan. In 1996, Carmen Mochizuki filed a class-action lawsuit[2], and won a settlement of around $5,000 per person to those eligible from what was left of the funds from the CLA. 145 of those affected were able to receive the $5,000 settlement before the funds ran out. In 1999, funds were approved for the attorney general to pay out to the rest of the claimants.[3]

I believe it was a Democrat Liberal that interned these Japanese-Americans. So again...who is right and wrong?