Keith Devens .com

But were you right in trusting it to Bush?

I take it you're a little bit in doubt yourself, since you have to resort to stumbling arguments like this one.....

Besides, did the American involvement in Nicaragua lead to anything good? Are Nicaraguan people's lifes better today because of it? And were they any better back then?

I don't know the full details about the US involvement in Nicaragua and Honduras, but from what I know there are no particular reasons to be bragging about this chapter of US history, just as little as there are reasons for criticizing Kerry for being against the US involvement.

John Kerry might have been anti-american because of his views, but apart from that it seems to me that he was on the good side in the conflict. Or what do you say?

This is just yet another case of Kerry having supported America's enemies.

I know.... My point is only that sometimes America's enemies are right and America is wrong.

And that's what I asked. I asked if Nicaragua was a case where America was wrong to do what it did. Is it possible? Is it possible that America could have been wrong?

Can a strong nation be wrong? Can it be wrong in it's conclusions about whether an other country represents an immediate danger to American citizens?

If America was wrong about the Nicaragua case, is it then possible that John Kerry was right in his choice to be against the American actions?

I think it's stupidity to attack people solely because they've been against official American policies at one point or another. I think instead you should praise yourself lucky that you have people that raise questions about the potential stupid things that the ruling administration might be carrying out. And of course, I think this might have been the case in Nicaragua, and I think it's definately the case in Iraq today.

Sure, it's possible for America to be wrong. I don't know enough about the Nicaraguan situation to take a definite position, and I'm sure not going to spend the time I don't have to research it now, but as far as I know it was considered to be yet another front in the Cold War, and Reagan was trying to arm anti-communist forces, the communists being the Sandinistas, who Kerry, it seems, supported. From what I know, I surely wouldn't say Kerry was on the right side by supporting them. The main reason the situation in Nicaragua was controversial was because Reagan went through "unofficial channels" to get involved (so, fyi, it wasn't technically official policy that Kerry was against).

Kerry, I should mention, was against a lot of Reagan's policies, including SDI, and he actually wanted a nuclear freeze! Kerry has such a track record of being so dearly wrong that I'd place my bets on Kerry's side being wrong regarding the Sandinistas as well, even if all I knew was that Kerry supported them.

Well.... I think you mostly WANT Kerry to be wrong. For instance the SDI program that you mention. I get it that you think Kerry was anti-american for opposing a program that would protect America from missile attacks. But, as it turns out SDI wasn't any big success, and America doesn't have any satellite based missile defence today, and it's not likely to ever get it. Why? Because SDI in most parts seems to have been a badly conceived idea. So... then.... why harass Kerry for having realized this at an early stage? It doesn't make sense, you know....

I get it that you think Kerry was anti-american for opposing a program that would protect America from missile attacks.

He wasn't anti-American, he was just wrong, the same way he was wrong in wanting a unilateral nuclear freeze. SDI, as I understand it, was a very important part of the negotiations between Reagan and Gorbechof, and I've seen it portrayed as one of the things that finally broke the Soviets' back, as they thought they'd all but lost. They thought we could do it.

So... then.... why harass Kerry for having realized this at an early stage?

First of all, some of the results of the program are actually in use, but you're right that it hasn't been the success we'd hoped for. I've seen some things doubting that we'll ever get to where we want, given the laws of physics. I'm not qualified to judge, but Kerry isn't either. Kerry's opposition certainly wasn't based on a deep knowledge of the physics involved, but on a different approach to achieving peace (peace, not victory) with the Soviet Union that differed at every point from Reagan's. Kerry wanted a unilateral nuclear freeze because he wanted "peace through appeasement", not "peace through strength", and he opposed SDI for the same reason. His approach was completely wrong, and Reagan's approach won the day. Thank God.

He wasn't anti-American, he was just wrong,

Well, he was maybe wrong in terms of not supporting a program that later turned out to play a role in the toppling of the Soviet Union. But that was just luck, you know... In every other perspective than to "help toppling the Soviet Union", the SDI initiative was more or less a failure.

So, I wouldn't say Kerry was wrong in not supporting it. And also, I don't believe that you need such a "deep understanding of Physics" in order to have a qualified opinion of whether the program would be feasible or not. Maybe it's even enough to have a rough idea about the number of satellites that would have to be in orbit in order to have a sufficient coverage of northern america at any point in time, and maybe it's enough to consider that these satellites would have had to cross over other countries in the world, STILL carrying those missiles that was supposed to be used to shoot down satellites over the US.

I think you're wrong in saying that "only deep physics revealed that the SDI program wasn't feasible". I think it's pretty likely that Reagan just was plain foolish when believing in it, and that Kerry and others DID have a qualified opinion when saying that it wouldn't work out.

(Much in the same way as Bush was plain foolish when he thought that Iraqis would welcome the invasion forces with open arms... mind you..... )

Shoot down MISSILES, sorry... I just re-read my comment and I spotted the misspelling...

Sorry for the delay... I knew I was forgetting something

In every other perspective than to "help toppling the Soviet Union", the SDI initiative was more or less a failure.

Given that's pretty much what we wanted it for, I'd call that a huge success. I wouldn't call it luck either -- our position would have been significantly weakened had we given up on SDI as the Soviets, and Kerry, wanted.

Re: your physics. You're speculating, and you're only guessing about Kerry's intentions in cancelling the program. At the height of the cold war, Kerry wanted to slash hundreds of billions from our defense budget. SDI was only a tiny part of what he wanted cut. Kerry wanted billions more cut in 1993 as well, and in 1995 wanted to freeze defense spending for most of the next decade. It's a pattern with him.

Interestingly, that article contained a detail I wasn't aware of:

No less than former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has attested to the fact that it was Mr. Reagan's refusal to bargain away SDI at the 1986 Reykjavik summit that precipitated the Soviet Union's eventual collapse five years later

Well, you might be onto something. I just think that the SDI program appears as a kind of a failed initiative by the US, and I made the original comment about it because I thought it was odd to use resistance against it as something that was clearly wrong.

About the physics... you're right. I'm speculating. But sometimes that's all you can do. I think Reagan speculated about it, and I think Kerry speculated about it.

And I'll give you one thing: America is a country that dares to try out new things. And truth to be told, if America hadn't tried to make this missile defense system, it would have been hard to know for sure if it was possible or not. So... in terms of pushing the evolution forward, I think that America deserves some credit. Regardless of whether some of the initiatives might have failed.

Something completely different is that America at times has TOO much faith in it's own capacity... If you're STRONG, you're sometimes in the position where you can push through something that gains your own interests, but where the objective morality of the action MIGHT be questionable. I think this has happened on a number of occasions, including the operations in Vietnam, and probably including the operations in Nicaragua and Honduras.

What exactly was the relationship that Kerry had with Sandinistas (which were not communist in ideology nor economic policy, but merely too poor to fight their revolution and needed monetary and arms backing, which was supplied by Cuba who was communist)?

Here was the article Hinderaker linked to:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200405040828.asp

Unfortunately, it's been "abridged" and you now have to pay to get the whole thing.