                                  T H E

                               Z E P H Y R

                      __     M A G A Z I N E
                     {__]++++++++++++++++++++++++++[]
                     Issue #43                7-29-87

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                            THE ZEPHYR II BBS
                        (Mesa, AZ - 602-894-6526)
                    owned and operated by T. H. Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, our Sysop and I would appreciate.
     . it if you would let your friends know where they can log  .
     . in to find the magazine (and incidentally one of the      .
     . finest BBSs in the country!).                             .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1987

    THIS ISSUE:

       There has been a lot of talk and news about Nicaragua and
    the Contras. With risk of offending some, there is a great
    deal of ignorance (not stupidity, mind you - just a bunch
    of misinformation and not bothering to check into what
    information is available).
       A large problem at the moment is that Col. North looked so
    good on television that he has become, to many, a national
    hero. He broke the law, violated the Constitution, went
    against his oath of service, lied to Congress, shredded
    documents legally demanded of him and in general did a number
    of things that would have tossed any one of us into the
    slammer for years to come. He did so many illegal things
    that he had to be offered legal immunity before he'd even
    talk, and even then had the nerve to tell Congress that they
    had no right to attempt to govern him or the NSC.
       Yet he is a national hero for taking arms built with our
    tax dollars, selling them to a terrorist country, and then
    shuffling the profits off to another country - in violation
    of Congressional edict.
       Very strange. But that's where we stand.
       What's all the flack about Nicaragua anyway? What's it all
    about?

       Nicaragua is the largest country of Central America. It's
    also the more sparsely populated. It got its name from a tribe
    if Indians that lived there when, with the help of the United
    States, they first established independence (1838).
       In 1909 two American citizens were executed in Nicaragua.
    The United States sent in the navy to get things back under
    control again. The marines moved in and occupied the country
    between 1912 and 1925.
       A part of the reason the United States was so interested
    in Nicaragua was that plans had been made to route a canal
    through the country. Things got sticky and the alternate
    came into being - now called the Panama Canal.
       (As a side note - Panama at that time was a part of Colombia.
    But Colombia didn't want to have anything to do with the US
    and refused to allow the canal to be built. With our typical
    bravado, we supplied the people in an overthrow and Panama
    became a separate country - and we got our canal, which we
    have since lost.)
       The plans for the alternate canal through Nicaragua still
    exist, by the way, and talk still continues concerning this.
    In fact, with the Panama Canal being lost to us (or getting
    lost to us), the talk of the new canal has increased in the
    past years. It's one of the reasons the United States wants
    friendly relations with Nicaragua so badly. It would be very
    much to our benefit to repeat in Nicaragua what we did early
    in this century with Panama.
       As long as there is an unfriendly government in Nicaragua,
    we can kiss the plans for the new canal goodbye. Worse, if
    that government becomes too friendly with the Soviets, a
    canal might still be built, but one that can be used by the
    Soviets but not by us.
       But back to the story.
       In 1927 there were still US troops in Nicaragua. General
    Cesar Augusto Sandino started a movement - and a successful
    one - to fight the US troops stationed there. The Sandinistas
    of today take their name from this earlier "freedom fighter."
    (Hey! He might have fought against the US, but it was for
    the freedom of Nicaragua, to get foreign troops out.)
       By 1933 Nicaragua became Nicaragua again and Sandino took
    power. A puppet-president, Juan Batista Sacassa, was put into
    place. But there was an interesting twist.
       One of the generals trained by Sandino - a guy named Anastasio
    Somoza Garcia (popularly known as Tacho) was given control of the
    Nicaraguan national guard. In 1934 Somoza up and offed Sandino.
       Well, assassination has always been a favored means of
    grabbing power. It's also an excellent way to get someone you
    don't like to shutup.
       Somoza set up a military dictatorship. Afterall, he knew what
    was good for everyone, whether they liked it or not. (Typical of
    the military mind. "Let's make our own laws, huh?")
       He did quite well for himself and for his family. Not many
    complained too loudly, either. First, it wasn't real safe to
    do so. Second, the country was making some real financial
    progress for the first time in its history. Even with Somoza and
    his family and friends reaping the cream off the top, the general
    populace was in pretty good shape and getting better.
       1956 came along. So did another assassination. Somoza bit
    the dust. Power was taken over by his son, Luis. Elections were
    held, but were a sham. When Luis wasn't in power, one of his
    family or one of his close buddies was. Then power would shift
    back to Luis, and back to a cousin, and back to Luis. No room
    for outsiders.
       Another son, and another general - Anastasio Somoza Debayle -
    took power in 1967 when Luis died. The death was considered
    natural, but some still suspect that it was a bit more. If anyone
    knows for sure, they're likely helping to fertilize the coffee
    crops.
       1979 came along. A growing group of "freedom fighters" made
    a grab for power. They took a name from the first "freedom
    fighter" and called themselves Sandinistas.
       It took them just 7 weeks to chase Somoza right out of the
    country. Two days later (July 19) they officially took over
    Nicaragua. Their promises were typical of "freedom fighters."
    They swore to open the economy, to not ally themselves to any
    specific foreign power, to allow multiple political parties
    and to have open elections. (The Contras are now promising the
    same things, just as did Sandino, Somoza, Sacassa, Somoza, Luis
    and the Sandinistas - nothing new there.)
       The Sandinistas were guerilla fighters. They claimed to
    have popular support. The public that didn't support them got
    nailed to a tree - just as the Contras are doing now, and just
    as almost ALL "freedom fighters" do in their time.
       The first year went along just great. The evil, wicked, nasty
    military dictator who knew what was good for everyone whether
    they liked it or not was out. The Sandinistas, who loved the
    common man and understood that the common man had a right to
    say what his government was like, was in power. Elections were
    coming. And they'd be free at last! after 50 years of broken
    promises.
       The 1 year anniversary of the revolution rolled up and
    suddenly it was decided that the common man needed more time
    to educate himself in order to make an intelligent decision as
    to who would govern his life. Afterall, the Sandinistas
    figured, Castro Ruz over there in Cuba had ousted a dictatorship
    just as they had done, had started to get the country back on
    its feet, and didn't bother keeping his own promise of free
    elections. And ol' Cigar Face was a damned important guy! Jeez,
    he had wine, women, song and money - LOTS of money - running
    out of his ears.
       So, let's put off the election for five years - give the
    stupid common man a chance to educate himself in the ways of
    the world so he becomes as wise as those of us in power.
       Back in the good ol US of A, Reagan was a bit tired of
    sending in money to a group who kept breaking their promises and
    lying to Congress - oops, to America (same thing). In January of
    1981 he suspended all financial aide to Nicaragua.
       As an additional excuse - oops, reason - he made the claim
    that Nicaragua, with help from Cuba and the Soviet Union, was
    busy supplying arms and other such goodies to El Salvador to the
    south. So what that we were, too. We're the good guys! We can
    supply arms to anyone we want!!! INCLUDING Iran!!!!!!! But don't
    YOU dare do it, cuz you're the bad guy.
       The Sandinistas, of course, denied the allegation. (Meanwhile,
    no sanctions were placed against Cuba or the Soviet Union. In fact,
    quite the opposite was, and is, happening.)
       Well, later in 1981 a new group of "freedom fighters" sprung up
    in Nicaragua. They called themselves counter-revolutionaries -
    whatever that means. No one else knew, either, so they shortened
    it to "contras."
       Trouble was, the populace was fairly well satisfied with how
    things were going. Even with support from the United States,
    the contras had a hard time getting their non-revolution off
    the ground. It was made worse for them in late 1984 when the
    Sandinistas held the election they'd been promising for so long.
       It was a typical election. "You have a choice, people. You
    can pick me, my buddy here, my cousin General Fred, or me."
       Daniel Ortega Saavedra was "elected" the first president,
    with 63% of the vote. They then turned to the world and said,
    "See! We had an election!"
       Reagan turned to the world and declared the election invalid,
    claiming that it was a "Soviet-styled sham" with those in power
    being the ones to decide who was to run for office - kinda like
    the Democratic and Republican conventions? Naw!
       What a lot of people don't know is that Reagan has had a mad on
    Ortega from long ago. During 1983 and 1984 he was already sending
    in United States troops - active-duty troops, no less - without
    the knowledge or approval of Congress.
       Our own Senator Goldwater, who is well-known for his no-nonsense
    attitude, was royally pissed, as were a number of other Congressmen.
    They'd been told - AFTER the attacks - that the United States was
    conducting some mild covert activities in support of the contras.
    They were NOT told that this "mild" activity included rocket and
    machine gun fire and acts of sabotage against both military and
    civil targets. All this was being carried on in secret, totally
    outside normal US government channels, complete with secret
    military groups, including private citizens, and with good ol'
    Col. North heading up the whole thing.
       As early as 1983 we were flying anti-Sandinista guerillas
    inside Nicaragua. At least twice in 1984 our troops got involved
    in fire fights to protect contra saboteurs. CIA operatives were
    also quite active in their acts of sabotage. Documents have been
    discovered that show that more than a few of the attacks credited
    to the contras were actually actions by the United States, with
    full knowledge beforehand by North, Poindexter, Casey and Reagan.
       Meanwhile, Reagan denied to Congress that any of this was
    going on. He went so far as to say both to the Congress and to the
    public that there were NO United States troops in Nicaragua.
       Through 1983 Congress had voted an appropriation under the
    condition that there was no attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan
    government and no direct military involvement. Through most of
    1984 $24 million was allowed for intelligence support. It became
    obvious that this was being abused and that American troops were
    very directly involved, so Congress withdrew all support. That
    was October 3, 1984. At this time any and all direct military
    action was strictly and specifically prohibited.
       Reagan came forward and told Congress that there was NO direct
    involvement by the United States military. Congress appropriated
    another $27 million for "humanitarian aid" for the contras. This
    was August 15, 1985.
       With repeated assurances that our military was not in Nicaragua,
    nor were any covert activities taking place, in October of 1986 a
    full $100 million was appropriated. Congress even allowed limited
    military involvement, but only in an advisory capacity. There is
    still some of this left, by the way. It won't be used up until
    October of this year. (The extra $25 million plus illicitly sent
    in by the Iran mess is an untrackable "bonus.")
       It was on-off situation. Congress couldn't seem to decide.
    Administrations answer was to go beyond the American system of
    government - to violate the Constitution, in actuality, and the
    American, democratic system of checks and balances - and carry
    on what they thought was best outside the law.
       Anyway;
       Ortega began his 6-year term of office on January 10, 1985.
    A few weeks later Reagan declared openly that his goal was to
    "remove it [the Sandinista government] in the sense of its
    present structure." He went to Congress, demanding an immediate
    and total embargo against Nicaragua (as he did concerning Iran?)
    and told them that Nicaragua was part of a secret plot to
    invade the United States.
       Not all of Congress agreed with him. The general public let it
    be known in no uncertain terms that the majority of them certainly
    didn't agree. (Not with coffee prices already going through the
    roof!) Quite a few saw the contras as just another band of
    sanctioned thugs and terrorists.
       Reagan went so far as to sent a personal threat to Ortega. In
    it he said that he knew what they were up to down there - that
    Nicaragua was a threat to the security of the United States, and
    that the United States would blow their socks off. Actually what
    he said was that the United States would "react accordingly" -
    but you know as well as I do what he really means, right?
       Ortega and his group, typically, became even more power mad.
    The contras were stirring up trouble. Per capita income to this
    day is still just $900. The people were starting to rebel. The
    situation was made all the worse by continued US military activities
    in Nicaragua, which included heavy use of propaganda (a common
    weapon, and a valid one) and targeting "unfriendly" civilians.
       As of October 1985 civil liberties were brought to an abrupt
    end. Military law was established.
       A little less than a year later Reagan finally got his way.
    Congress appropriated $100 million for "military and non-military
    aid to the contras." The Sandinistas weak answer was to close
    down the only remaining newspaper of the opposition (one they'd
    allowed to operate all that time, by the way).
       It was an emotional time. Several Congressmen came forward
    afterwards, wondering if maybe they'd done the right thing. Others
    became even stronger in their support. Meanwhile, the World Court
    came to a decision in the case and told the United States to
    keep their nose out of it. Reagan, in so many words, told the
    World Court to shove it deep into a dark, tight hole.
       As another side note, it was right about this time that
    political comedian Mark Russel came up with the comment that
    during VietNam, America was unsure of itself; that afterwards
    we slowly came to appreciate ourselves; but that now we're having
    a mad passionate love affair with ourselves and it's time to
    go outside the doors and meet the neighbors.

       The Sandinista government is quite obviously oppressive. No
    one with any sense can doubt that. They're once again promising
    open elections, set for such time as the present civil upheaval
    quiets down a bit. Or so they say. Meanwhile, there are still
    few, if any, civil rights. If Ortega and his group decide that
    your ass would make a nice table decoration at Sunday brunch,
    off it comes. Trial by jury? What's that?
       In short, they're not nice people.
       On the other side you have the contras. They're not real hot
    on civil rights, either. They've been known to go into a village
    for food, supplies and some, er, entertainment? - and get rather
    irate if all aren't forthcoming.
       Any place where there is so much action is bound to attract
    reporters. Camera crews have followed the contra forces through
    the jungles and into their camps. One was even lucky (lucky?)
    enough to have been around when the contras had to hightail it
    for Honduras. ("Border? What border?") One scene showed them
    coming into a village where they were welcomed with cheers and
    open arms. Another scene showed them skirting a village that
    wanted nothing to do with them - with either side. (That same
    village was later destroyed by the contras for harboring
    Sandinista sympathizers.)
       In short, they're not so nice, either.
       Reporters come back with stories, and pictures, of atrocities
    of the Sandistas. They also come back with stories, and pictures
    of atrocities carried out by the contras.
       It's easy to see and understand that the Sandinistas are NOT
    what you'd call a good form of government. That makes it easy
    to sympathize with the contras. But what can you say about a
    group who burns a village to the ground, after killing every man,
    woman and child in it, because they won't give up what little food
    they have? (Of course, you can always take the closed-minded
    excuse of, "That reporter was lying, or is a commie pinko fag.")

       Ahhh, but why are we so concerned? Is it really because a
    Soviet base that close to America is such a great threat?
       A part of the answer is obvious - or so it seems. Of COURSE
    having a Soviet base that close is a threat. Back in 1962 we
    faced a somewhat similar situation in Cuba - a situation which
    very nearly got us into WW III when Kennedy threatened to remove
    Cuba from the face of the planet if the missles didn't come down.
       But look at reality. The Soviets have bases closer to the
    United States right now. They're called submarines. We have the
    same thing, and more. We have a whole line of missles placed
    right along the Soviet borders and aimed at downtown Moscow (among
    other places). For the past 30 years we've had our proverbial
    gun barrel jammed down their throats, all the while thinking
    that this is just fine. Afterall, WE are the good guys! To hell
    with the populace of those countries where we keep our missles.
    So they protest. So they want us out. So they will be the first
    to go in a cloud of smoke if anything happens.
       Even that doesn't matter, though. There are so many ICBMs on
    both sides that neither can hope to take out even half of the
    incoming. And half of the incoming is still 25 times more than
    is needed to kill every living thing on earth. Not just in the
    enemy country, but on the entire globe. (And that's not even
    taking nuclear winter into consideration.)
       Beyond that - take the outrageous situation where each and
    every land-based missle is either destroyed or fails to fire.
    It still doesn't matter. Our submarine fleet - virtually
    untouchable - has enough to still destroy every city and town
    in the Soviet Union. Their submarine fleet has nearly as much
    power, and they're just as untouchable.
       That's classic doom 'n' gloom. Hide your head all you want,
    it's still easily verifiable fact. There's even a term for it,
    created by our own beloved Reagan. MAD. Mutually assured
    destruction. It's the very basis of our foreign policy with
    the Soviets - and theirs with us.
       "Blow us up and we'll blow you up."
       Present day "defense" on both sides is set up around this
    rather bizarre idea, with the goal - reached over a decade ago
    and still climbing - being the ability to annihilate the other
    no matter what. Let the Soviets set up a silo field outside
    Omaha, or us just outside Kiev - it won't matter. Not very
    much. You'll have gained maybe a 10 minute edge, which is
    diddly-squat in the overall scheme. A base in Nicaragua allows
    them maybe a 5 minute edge, tops.
       It still doesn't matter.
       So what's it all about?
       If it's not national security - which it IS to a limited
    extent - is it freedom for the Nicaraguan people?
       But in that case, why send arms to a group that openly blows
    up a school bus full of kids, that tortures people to death for
    information, that doesn't respect national borders when it
    suits them, that basically carries on a terrorist activity? Why
    not also set some rules and regulations contingent upon getting
    that aide?
       "You guys want to blow up military bases, fine. We'll even
    help. But leave the innocent people alone!"
       We don't do that because it's impossible, just as it was
    impossible in VietNam.

       Back at the beginning of this century we got sick and tired
    of having to sail all the way around South America just to get
    to Florida. But there was Central America. A narrow little
    strip of land with lots of big lakes. How nice it would be
    to dig a channel between the ocean, the lakes and into the
    Caribbean.
       Two places were selected - Panama and Nicaragua. Both had some
    wonderful, big lakes that would make the job easier. Trouble
    was, Nicaragua was in an upheaval and Panama was owned by
    Colombia who wanted nothing to do with the United States.
       Panama was easier. All we had to do was to supply their
    "freedom fighters" for a while so that Panama could break free
    of Colombia. Then we'd have a bunch of people in our debt. Not
    only that, let's draw up an agreement beforehand. We'll help
    you break loose if you'll give us this chunk of land here.
       And that's what we did in 1903. (Incidentally, the idea of
    the Panama Canal is NOT America. The Spanish came up with the
    idea way back in 1534.)
       Everything went fairly smoothly until 1974 when the Panamanians
    started to get sick and tired of the "Hey, we're great because
    we're Americans, you slobs!" Besides, we were still paying them
    a rental fee based on a lease agreement drawn up in 1955, which
    was revised from a 1933 version, which was revised from the
    original when the canal was under construction. (Imagine having
    the same rent for 20 years!)
       We're losing the canal, plain and simple.
       At the moment things are friendly with Panama. That could
    change tomorrow or next week. They could get pissed at us, like
    just about every other country in the world is getting pissed
    at us right now (mostly for our "I'm so wonderful" attitude).
       The existing treaty says that we won't build or even attempt
    to build a canal without Panama's approval. It's a stupid
    restriction - but then, the United States has never been one
    known to honor treaties. Besides, if Panama backs out on their
    end of the bargain . . . .
       An alternate site was chosen long ago. Quite a few, with
    the notable exception of the President of the time, preferred
    Nicaragua. It had quite a few advantages, and we didn't have
    to fight against a foreign country or steal their land (Colombia)
    to do it. Panama was actually a secondary choice in the minds
    of many. But Teddy liked it, so that's what we did.
       The idea of a canal through Nicaragua still remains. If the
    Panama Canal is closed to us some day in the future, Nicaragua
    is the ONLY other logical choice. Without that hunk of land,
    we're up a creek - or up the long way around South America
    anyway.

       So, it all makes sense. It's practical - even logical. We
    HAVE to keep some kind of control over Nicaragua, just in case.
       Just don't fool yourself that it's for all those nice
    altruistic reasons.
       When Aunt Sylvia takes a pleasure cruise from San Diego to
    Jamaica, we don't want her to have to go by way of Tierra del
    Fuego, now, do we?

                              The Editorial

       Put all of that aside. And no more tongue-in-cheek (or
    very little of it). Don't take my word for anything above,
    or anything to come. Check it out for yourself. Especially
    if you're going to refute some point or another.
       To toss insults or come up with things like, "That's a
    lie" merely insults your own intelligence. That kind of
    attitude belongs in Moscow. NOT in America.
       So, check it out first. It's not difficult.

       Right off, you may not like it but we live in a big, bad
    world full of nasty people. The Soviets, and others, are well
    known for their covert activities. The United States has had
    its own covert activities since even before there was a
    United States. It's unfortunate, but spying and even assassination
    is a way of life in our world.
       It's also a simple fact that things are not always quite as
    they seem. Nothing is real simple. And ALL governments use
    propaganda to achieve what they want.
       The Sandinista government isn't so great. It would be
    nice for them to be gone, or to at least change their ways.
    There's the question of whether or not we have the right to impose
    our will on them. It's easy to realize how wrong it is for the
    Soviets to impose their will on others by force. It's not so easy
    to accept that it's just as wrong for us to do the same.
       Henry Kissinger pointed out that the option to co-exist with
    the Sandinistas has been totally ignored as an option. Maybe it
    wouldn't work. We'll never know now. We've been actively trying to
    blow them out since before their first election. In a sense, the
    military and financial pressures, and the propaganda, might be
    responsible for causing that election to be a sham.
       A second option was to apply various sanctions in the attempt
    to bring Nicaragua back to the inter-American agreement, and to
    exercise forceful operations when and if. Instead, Reagan totally
    withdrew all support before the Sandinistas had any chance to get
    things going - and forcing them to turn elsewhere for support. In
    a single, somewhat blind move, he took away the power of the United
    States to influence how the government was operated while simul-
    taneously causing the Sandinistas to turn to Castro and to the
    Soviet Union.
       The third option is to topple the Sandinista government in
    the hopes that when (and if) the contras get into power, they
    will be "more willing to buckle under and tow the line." The
    problem with this option is that it is outside the power of the
    executive branch. In the minds of many, it also comes dangerously
    close to the kind of action so typical of the Soviet Union.
       At the moment there aren't many options left. Like it or not,
    Reagan has left us none other than to work with, or through, the
    Contras. They are the only remaining "bargaining chip" we have.
       Face it. We've got the Sandinistas pissed at us. They're not
    about to sit down to the table and talk things over nicely. Not
    any more! Put yourself in their place.
       Your big, powerful neighbor has been sending money, arms and
    support to get you kicked out since before you even took power.
    No talk - just force. How are you going to react to that?
       Now imagine the same situation, but not with you as a calm,
    reasonable person - but with someone who grabbed power by
    violence in the first place and who wants to grab even more.
       And that's the situation.
       We can deal with the Contras - sorta, and for now. Withdrawing
    all support at this point would doom the Contras. Some see that
    as a slap in the face to the United States. It would be, but
    that's not important. More important is that we'd be tossing out
    the only bargaining position we have left down there. And that
    in turn would take the Sandinista government who already hates
    us because of our past (and continuing) actions and set them
    free.
       Even worse, removing support at this point would be an open
    statement to other governments in that area, and elsewhere, that
    the United States just can't seem to make up its mind.
       There are claims that the United State's on-off policy is
    the main reason that the Contras aren't really getting anywhere.
    In all this time, they have yet to hold down even one significant
    chunk of Nicaragua. They blame that on the United States. There
    is a significant amount of propaganda right here in our own country
    that indicates the same thing.
       But when it really comes down to it, the Contras actually have
    very little public support in their own country. Plain and simple.
    There is some support, to be sure. And it's a certainty that the
    populace there despises the Sandinista government. But at the
    same time, the general and average person in Nicaragua isn't
    exactly fond of the Contras, either.
       There have been too many acts of violence by the Contras
    against innocent people, and innocent villages. Their attitude
    of guerilla warfare, and to hell with anyone who happens to
    get in the way, is well known.
       There are some here are bound to say that all that is a lie.
    That's strange considering that checking it out is so simple.
    A school bus gets blown up. A village gets burned down with
    everyone in sight killed either instantly or by torture to get
    information. It's easy to sit back in your chair in front of the
    computer and talk about the fortunes of war. But you're here,
    safe and sound. No one has come through Mesa, or Tempe, randomly
    shooting down your friends. No one has taken your family out,
    tied them to a tree and cut off hunks of their bodies one at a
    time.
       For a while, getting the Contras to straighten up was a #1
    priority. "Hey, if you guys want our help, you're going to HAVE
    to stop those terrorist-like activities against civilians."
       Leadership of the Contras has changed 4 times. Just when
    things look as though they're getting better, the old leaders
    are ousted and someone new takes over. The terrorist methods
    continue. They're well recognized except by those who have
    blinded themselves to the facts. The top leader of the Contras
    has been, and apparently will continue to be, a man named
    Enrique Bermudez.
       Arturo Cruz was a part of the Sandinista government. He is
    now an exile and a part of the overall resistance. He has said
    publicly that although there are some terrific people in the
    Contra movement - and there is some real scum in there, and
    especially those at the top, who want to return the country to
    what is known as "somocismo" - a kind of dictatorship that makes
    the Sandinistas tame in comparison.
       The people don't want the Sandinistas. They sure as hell
    don't want the Somoza-type power structure under Bermudez, which
    was worse yet. Since the Contra leadership represents just this
    - and shows it in their daily actions - they just flat out don't
    have the public support that so many Americans think they have.
       Negotiations with the Sandinistas have been useless. At the
    same time, negotiations with Bermudez have been just as useless.
    If you think that Bermudez will change if he gets into power,
    you're living in a dream world.
       What it comes down to is that the United States is using the
    Contra movement. We don't want them in power any more than we
    want the Sandinistas in power. (Nor do the people of Nicaragua,
    despite what you might have heard.) Think about it logically for
    a moment. If the United States DID want the Contras in power, or
    if they had all the public support that is so often claimed,
    they would BE in power. Right now. At very least they would hold
    some significant sections of the country - and certainly would
    have no need to annihilate villages to bring others into line.
       Or put it in dollars and cents. Last year alone the United
    States spent more than $12,000 per man of the Contra forces.
    This in a country where the average income is $900 per year. If
    you believe the reports, most of the food and immediate supplies
    needed are being freely given to the Contras by the people of
    Nicaragua. There is a heavy complaint that the Contras are
    ill-armed, with ancient, rusty weapons they brought from home or
    were given by villagers.
       Now think about that for a moment.
       We have little choice now but to support the Contras. But the
    time for blindness has long passed.

    Until Next Time

       Whew! That actually started out as something that was supposed
    to be quick and simple. I got carried away with myself.
       As a plug, my most recent book, "Chilton's Guide to Operating
    and Maintaining Home Video Equipment" is in production. If things
    keep going as they are at the moment, it should hit the shelves
    sometime later this fall.
       It's the 9th book I've done for them. The other 8 are out there
    and ready to be purchased. Can't afford to buy one? Libraries
    carry them, too. The Tempe Library has just about all my books.

       Next time around?
       Well, last time around was about the Mecham recall. Kinda
    joking around I nominated Chris Mitchell for a write in vote.
    That motion was instantly seconded - and then was almost as
    instantly disputed by Chris.
       He doesn't WANT to be governor. (Smart guy!) But what if he
    was swept into office by public desire? The very fact that he
    doesn't want to be in office just might be the strongest point
    he has going - that and a whole lot of common sense.
       What would happen with Chris Mitchell in office, huh?

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.