Reagan and contras (response- no Who)



Sroundtable at aol.com Sroundtable at aol.com
Wed Jun 9 11:05:59 CDT 2004


In a message dated 6/8/2004 9:26:05 PM Central Daylight Time, 
thewho-request at igtc.com writes:

> and i'm sorry people are praising reagan 
> even though he sent contras to nicaragua to kill everyone down there because 
> 
> they were "a threat" and i'm sorry he didn't believe in the equal rights 
> ammendment when he took office... 
> 


The contras weren't sent anywhere by Reagan. They were Nicaraguans who wanted 
to overthrow an illegitimate, oppressive, communist Sandinista regime.  They 
certainly weren't trying to "kill everyone down there."  The Contras weren't 
the Khmer Rouge, for God's sake.  There were no killing fields in Nicaragua 
(other than the thousands of political enemies murdered by Daniel Ortega), though 
the Contras were certainly not boy scouts and were guilty of some atrocities 
themselves.  Regardless of whether the Contras really wanted democracy or were 
actually freedom fighters, that's what they got.  There were free elections 
there, overseen by Jimmy Carter, and Ortega and the communists were voted out.  
It is a working democracy today and the people's lives are a quantum leap 
better than they were under communism.  The spread of communism was a serious 
threat to us, especially in our region of the world.  Kennedy certainly thought 
so. 

Lots of people don't believe in the equal rights amendment, which is why it 
didn't pass.  It would be a superfluous addition to the constitution.  The 14th 
amendment already states that all citizens of the U.S. are guaranteed the 
equal protection of the laws.  Women who are U.S. citizens are obviously already 
covered under this.  Add to that the 19th amendment guaranteeing the right to 
vote regardless of gender and the constitution already guarantees full rights 
to women.  

This is not to say that women have achieved equality, which they haven't.  
BUT, as more than 50% of the voting population, they can exercise the power to 
influence the shaping of national laws, their implementation, and the 
judiciary- which they have done very successfully.  Laws and judicial decisions serve 
to safeguard women's rights on a myriad of issues.  The constitution should 
remain reserved for general principles, to be specified by legislation, 
implemented by elected executives, and adjudicated by the courts- ALL of which are 
influenced by political forces available to and exercised by everyone, including 
women.

Mc

PS- I'm sure the list would appreciate any continuation of this discussion be 
handled off-list.  Feel free to e-mail privately.



More information about the TheWho mailing list