Nicaraguan leader's allies protest at US Embassy

In my humble opinion I think that whether his comments are true or not, because of; one it is unconstitutional and un diplomatic; two the political social and economical impact they can have on Nicaragua or the region in whole. Therefore his comments should have been more neutral like those of Canada and the UE. Because let’s face the facts and not let nationalistic pride blind one’s reasoning, is it acceptable by the United States or any other country to allow foreign States to intervene in their internal affairs?

Sometimes we as human beings tend to be all nationalistic, partial or even egoistic in our response to others especially those whom we regard to be less fortunate, forgetting that our flaws are so evident and so hideous.

However, in relation to whether the US Ambassador should stay in the country, I think that if his presence will deteriorate relations for both countries then it is best advised that he ought to leave, but we now that reciprocity will be applied. That’s just the rule. After all it was established by the Geneva Convention or as they would put it nicely that’s “Diplomacy”

Observer wrote:

In my humble opinion I think that whether his comments are true or not, because of; one it is unconstitutional and un diplomatic; two the political social and economical impact they can have on Nicaragua or the region in whole. Therefore his comments should have been more neutral like those of Canada and the UE. Because let’s face the facts and not let nationalistic pride blind one’s reasoning, is it acceptable by the United States or any other country to allow foreign States to intervene in their internal affairs?
Sometimes we as human beings tend to be all nationalistic, partial or even egoistic in our response to others especially those whom we regard to be less fortunate, forgetting that our flaws are so evident and so hideous.
However, in relation to whether the US Ambassador should stay in the country, I think that if his presence will deteriorate relations for both countries then it is best advised that he ought to leave, but we now that reciprocity will be applied. That’s just the rule. After all it was established by the Geneva Convention or as they would put it nicely that’s “Diplomacy”

The Nicaraguan people are the second poorest in the western hemisphere, second only to Haiti. The government is unable and unwilling to do anything about it. The President has changed the constitution without any regard to the will of the people. There was no vote, no census taken, and the process was held largely at night behind closed doors. The protest was more hostile than this article leads to believe, with the end result of the riot division of police finally arriving an hour after the protest began.
The U.S. is working to implement a policy that will bring a resolution to the ridiculous government decision making process, and put more power in the hands of the people. The people are excited about change, and never elected the current president into power to begin with. The country has lost more money in the past 4 years than in the past 10, and people have had enough.
I was speaking with a friend of mine recently and he told me about a government run program to aid people with small businesses. Then he told me that the only people who qualify for this program are people in the Sandinista Political Party. He would have to change parties, and swear allegiance to the party of the president.
When you force someone to change their political views for a chance at a better opportunity, then I believe that it IS time for an outside party to intervene and protect the people that cannot protect themselves.
-Nicaragua

Daniel's election was corrupted in the first place. The people in power are the Sandinistas and they have been strategically placed in those positions since before the elections in 2006. The popular vote percentage needed for victory was significantly lowered and the opposing parties (both from PLC) were "naively" split giving Ortega the edge.
These changes in constitution are turning up through Latin America, and I truly believe they are fueled by Hugo Chavez and power/money hungry leaders with their own interests in mind. Look at Honduras' recent coup. It happened because Zelaya wanted to change their current constitution and ignored his warnings not to from their supreme court and congress.(Not that they ended up better, but thats a different issue).
Yes, Nicaragua should be allowed to support their own ideals, however Nicaragua at the moment belongs to Daniel Ortega and his corrupted Sandinista adgenda. His interpretation and response to Callahan's comment on how the Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on consecutive re-election "could undermine the foundations of Nicaragua's democracy" was completely blown out of proportion. I strongly believe this was done to raise extensive media coverage and a shock factor throughout the nation against the United States to raise nationalism and distraction to what is really important: the conservation and repair of the rights lingering in a broken democracy.

Sorry about the runons, it was difficult to see in the little text comment box.
Hope the message is clear enough.

MB Managua wrote:

Daniel's election was corrupted in the first place. The people in power are the Sandinistas and they have been strategically placed in those positions since before the elections in 2006. The popular vote percentage needed for victory was significantly lowered and the opposing parties (both from PLC) were "naively" split giving Ortega the edge.
These changes in constitution are turning up through Latin America, and I truly believe they are fueled by Hugo Chavez and power/money hungry leaders with their own interests in mind. Look at Honduras' recent coup. It happened because Zelaya wanted to change their current constitution and ignored his warnings not to from their supreme court and congress.(Not that they ended up better, but thats a different issue).
Yes, Nicaragua should be allowed to support their own ideals, however Nicaragua at the moment belongs to Daniel Ortega and his corrupted Sandinista adgenda. His interpretation and response to Callahan's comment on how the Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on consecutive re-election "could undermine the foundations of Nicaragua's democracy" was completely blown out of proportion. I strongly believe this was done to raise extensive media coverage and a shock factor throughout the nation against the United States to raise nationalism and distraction to what is really important: the conservation and repair of the rights lingering in a broken democracy.

That’s why the world is so messed up to day because other super powers feel that it is their alienable right to just enter other state and violate their sovereignty. Whether a country has a relatively unstable democratic system that is no pretext for other nations to intervene in their internal affairs with out consent. The saying goes do unto others as you would like to be done unto you.

What is democracy? That idealist terminology that the politicians the promoters of democracy try to and succeeded to sell some of us has nothing to do in the real world. Yes I agree that there should be protocol in doing things. Also we ought to understand that democracy varies in countries institutions regions etc. There is no such thing as perfect democratic model, not even Greece o Rome the founder states of democracy use to represent all the citizens. But how can we speak democracy yet you want to INSTALL or DICTATE to another country how democracy should work, how ironic, think about it.
On the other hand I am not supporting the attacks on the American embassy. I think those actions should be condemned and those reasonable should be penalised.

Yes, I have truly dedicated much thought to it. I am from Managua and although I have not been home in some time I have kept up with the news, friends, and family.
Yes, many times super powers intervene to a ridiculous extent (usually it has to do with protecting their big business' that they rely and oppress on those countries for) and its pretty messed up. However, the reason that embassies are installed is to have a base there, a quick way for communication to and fro, and to keep the host countries in check while establishing positive relations. This is because we live in a fragile global society where we all depend off one another. The U.S. ambassador did not intervene on behalf of the U.S., he spoke on behalf of U.S. ideals, which he has the right to do. After all it is his job to let Ortega know where they are standing politically if they want to maintain good relations with the U.S. Whether its annoying or not.
Yes, countries do adjust governing styles in their own lands, of course, we are not all the same and innovation should always be encouraged...its how these governments arose in the first place. Callahan's observation was an educated one that analyzes and is supported by the trend that is slowly consuming Latin America. His is an especially wise comment considering Ortega's constant relations with Chavez and his history of governing style in Nicaragua, which was not only unsuccessful (by making the poor even poorer), but also very dangerous (chasing away and murdering those who stimulated the economy and those who were against his party).
Daniel does not want one more election, his history as a Tyrant should be enough to maintain a skeptical approach of all his movements.

Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
That’s why the world is so messed up to day because other super powers feel that it is their alienable right to just enter other state and violate their sovereignty. Whether a country has a relatively unstable democratic system that is no pretext for other nations to intervene in their internal affairs with out consent. The saying goes do unto others as you would like to be done unto you.
What is democracy? That idealist terminology that the politicians the promoters of democracy try to and succeeded to sell some of us has nothing to do in the real world. Yes I agree that there should be protocol in doing things. Also we ought to understand that democracy varies in countries institutions regions etc. There is no such thing as perfect democratic model, not even Greece o Rome the founder states of democracy use to represent all the citizens. But how can we speak democracy yet you want to INSTALL or DICTATE to another country how democracy should work, how ironic, think about it.
On the other hand I am not supporting the attacks on the American embassy. I think those actions should be condemned and those reasonable should be penalised.

Sorry about posting this twice (I'm new to these things)
Yes, I have truly dedicated much thought to it. I am from Managua and although I have not been home in some time I have kept up with the news, friends, and family.
Yes, many times super powers intervene to a ridiculous extent (usually it has to do with protecting their big business' that they rely and oppress on those countries for) and its pretty messed up. However, the reason that embassies are installed is to have a base there, a quick way for communication to and fro, and to keep the host countries in check while establishing positive relations. This is because we live in a fragile global society where we all depend off one another. The U.S. ambassador did not intervene on behalf of the U.S., he spoke on behalf of U.S. ideals, which he has the right to do. After all it is his job to let Ortega know where they are standing politically if they want to maintain good relations with the U.S. Whether its annoying or not.
Yes, countries do adjust governing styles in their own lands, of course, we are not all the same and innovation should always be encouraged...its how these governments arose in the first place. Callahan's observation was an educated one that analyzes and is supported by the trend that is slowly consuming Latin America. His is an especially wise comment considering Ortega's constant relations with Chavez and his history of governing style in Nicaragua, which was not only unsuccessful (by making the poor even poorer), but also very dangerous (chasing away and murdering those who stimulated the economy and those who were against his party).
Daniel does not want one more election, his history as a Tyrant should be enough to maintain a skeptical approach of all his movements.

I have visited the country several times a year in the last few years. It is understandable the resentment that Nicaraguans feel for Americans, because its true, we have not been good neighbors. Actually yes - Terrible neighbors, but the attack on the U.S Embassy was wrong. Unlike the Nicaraguan people the U.S ambassador is one of the few people to freely express himself against Mr. Ortega. for the Nicaraguan people. Mr. Ortega is running the Nation to the ground. I would not be surprised if rioters were instigated by the government.

byr wrote:

I have visited the country several times a year in the last few years. It is understandable the resentment that Nicaraguans feel for Americans, because its true, we have not been good neighbors. Actually yes - Terrible neighbors, but the attack on the U.S Embassy was wrong. Unlike the Nicaraguan people the U.S ambassador is one of the few people to freely express himself against Mr. Ortega. for the Nicaraguan people. Mr. Ortega is running the Nation to the ground. I would not be surprised if rioters were instigated by the government.

They probably were. I don't see 'the people' attcking the U.S. Embassy because someone says his move undermines 'the people'. Besides, it wouldnt be the first time Ortega instigate these types of things. However, the U.S. had been a sketchy neighbor for some time and there is a lot of U.S. resentment from multiple levels of society. I am glad someone went out and said something against Ortga in the public eye. Since there is a potential to 'disappear' or 'commit suicide' if impactive expression or rebelion against Ortega's ideals of the Sandinista party people are frightend or simply keep living as by-standers.