gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
I see, even if people espouse policies that are very helpful to the Communists, pointing out that they are helpful to the Communists is a great moral wrong. Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? Frankly, it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what kind of religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their rhetoric is. "IN THE NAME OF GOD", what vast hypocrisy. Will it never end? Guy
vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/06/86)
You have been fooled by the scaffold of deception that surrounds the Sandanistas and has from day 1. These people are Marxist-Leninists and have looked towards Cuba And the USSR as their source of ideology since the early stages of their revolution. Wake up. Don't use the excuse that the Sandanista policies are a result of US aggression; back at the start of their rule (post July '79) when the US was still friendly and giving them economic aid, Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Talk to the NICARAGUAN church officials about religious persecution - what happened to the Sunday televised mass, the Catholic radio station, the 16+ expelled priests and nuns, the Crusade for Christ ministry (an association of nonaligned college student-missionaries), etc. Who cares if a homeboy bishop went to Nicaragua and sat in Tomas Borge's inner sanctum and personally witnessed the nice man looking at a Bible? I agree with Simon - an earlier note complianing about the pro-Soviet stance of this net group - we desperately need some rational thought in this .group.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/07/86)
Guy Ferraiolo writes: >Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, >Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? Since the American religious groups protesting US policy in Central America are acting on the assumption that the US is a democratic society in which it is possible to influence government policy by popular pressure and appeals to morality, it follows that Mr. Ferraiolo believes that the governments of the Soviet Union and China and the Khmer Rouge are likewise democratic and responsive to popular pressure and moral appeals even from religious groups in the US, to say nothing of their own citizens. So I think Mr. Ferraiolo deserves a Hero of Labor medal for arguing that communist countries are democratic and responsive to human rights appeals. >Frankly, it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what >kind of religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their >rhetoric is. Comments like this indicate the futility of discussion with a close-minded person, whose mind is already made up and who knows the answers already. I guess anyone who disagrees with Mr. Ferraiolo is self-evidently hypocritical. Net.politics.dogma is too much a forum for confident assertions by people who believe that their thought processes are infallible, and too little a forum for reasoned discussion by those who know that the truth is usually elusive. But I suppose this is inherent in the nature of a computer network. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) (03/09/86)
In article <707@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > I see, even if people espouse policies that are very helpful to the > Communists, pointing out that they are helpful to the Communists is > a great moral wrong. Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, > Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? Frankly, > it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what kind of > religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their rhetoric is. > > "IN THE NAME OF GOD", what vast hypocrisy. Will it never end? > > Guy You conveniently refer to Tibet, Cambodia and the Ukraine. At least in Tibet and Cambodia, I am convinced that atrocities, killings and mass movement of populations took place. (I know nothing about the Ukraine, but I also know that the U.S. shares the guilt for what happened to Cambodia. Remember Kissinger and his saturation bombing?) However, you also conveniently forget El Salvador, Chile, South Africa and South Korea, to name a few of the U.S.'s staunch allies with rather colorful resumes. They are staunch anti-communists, good capitalists and the very model of the kind of democracy some in the U.S. would like to export to the world, the model Reagan is bent on reintroducing into Nicaragua.
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/09/86)
In article <88@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <707@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: >> I see, even if people espouse policies that are very helpful to the >> Communists, pointing out that they are helpful to the Communists is >> a great moral wrong. Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, >> Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? Frankly, >> it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what kind of >> religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their rhetoric is. >> >> "IN THE NAME OF GOD", what vast hypocrisy. Will it never end? >> >> Guy > >You conveniently refer to Tibet, Cambodia and the Ukraine. At least >in Tibet and Cambodia, I am convinced that atrocities, killings and >mass movement of populations took place. (I know nothing about the >Ukraine, The death toll in the Ukraine was on the order of tens of millions, I believe. >but I also know that the U.S. shares the guilt for what >happened to Cambodia. Remember Kissinger and his saturation bombing?) > >However, you also conveniently forget El Salvador, Chile, South Africa >and South Korea, to name a few of the U.S.'s staunch allies with rather >colorful resumes. They are staunch anti-communists, good capitalists >and the very model of the kind of democracy some in the U.S. would >like to export to the world, the model Reagan is bent on reintroducing >into Nicaragua. I was very sad to read this article. I was beginning to think Raif was someone I could trust to give a fair account of things from a viewpoint I am not familar with. But now he seems to be equating oppressive, brutal, frequently muderous tyrannies with regimes engaging in full scale genocide as a matter of state policy.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/10/86)
In article <11000126@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > You have been fooled by the scaffold of deception that surrounds the > Sandanistas and has from day 1. These people are Marxist-Leninists and > have looked towards Cuba And the USSR as their source of ideology since > the early stages of their revolution. Wake up. Don't use the excuse that > the Sandanista policies are a result of US aggression; back at the start > of their rule (post July '79) when the US was still friendly and giving > them economic aid, Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and > praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. > Talk to the NICARAGUAN church officials about religious persecution - what > happened to the Sunday televised mass, the Catholic radio station, the 16+ > expelled priests and nuns, the Crusade for Christ ministry (an association > of nonaligned college student-missionaries), etc. Who cares if a homeboy > bishop went to Nicaragua and sat in Tomas Borge's inner sanctum and personally > witnessed the nice man looking at a Bible? I agree with Simon - an earlier > note complianing about the pro-Soviet stance of this net group - we > desperately need some rational thought in this .group. I don't recall seeing anyone claiming that the Sandinistas are wonderful, gentle, peace loving benefactors. *I* certainly never made any such claim! How is it that declaiming the support of the Contra Terrorists is a pro-Sviet stance? Remember who the Contras ARE. They are, by and large, the remnants of the Samosa secret police and army. They were hardly the democratic benefactors. They are interested only in re-instating their own dictatorship over the Nicarauguan people, not in any form of freedom (excepting possibly their freedom to oppress/repress). As I said in several other articles posted to this newsgroup, there appear to be an awfully large number of seemingly intelligent individuals positng here who are incapable of anything but binary reasoning. Because I deplore and condemn the support of the Contra terrorists in no way implies that I an any way support the Sandinista regime. I do not. I *DO* believe that the United States should keep out of it completely. The fact is that without US aid, the Contras would not be able to maintain their fight. Thus, if we assume that economic aid to the Contras qualifies as "American aggression" (a por choice of terms, I'll grant you), then it follows that the major violence in Nicaraugua is indeed the result of "American aggression", and that any measures taken by the Sandinistas to reduce the danger of such violence is in direct response to same. I suggest that all of you "freedom loving" Americans who believe so strongly in the support of terrorism by America (the Contras, Savimbe, etc.) go to one of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. 'Nuff said. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> > Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and > praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. I would like to see evidence to backup this assertion. As I recall Nicaragua abstained from voting on a resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the UN. Thus their official position was one of neither support nor condemnation. Does anyone have substantiated evidence on this? My own evidence on the Nicaraguan vote is my recollection, but I am confident my memory is correct. tim sevener whuxn!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/11/86)
> Net.politics.dogma is too much a forum for confident assertions by > people who believe that their thought processes are infallible, and > too little a forum for reasoned discussion by those who know that the > truth is usually elusive. But I suppose this is inherent in the > nature of a computer network. > -- > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes No, it's inherent in a computer network largely populated by academics and pseudo-intellectuals. A little honest labor never hurt anyone.
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/11/86)
>In article <707@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: >> I see, even if people espouse policies that are very helpful to the >> Communists, pointing out that they are helpful to the Communists is >> a great moral wrong. Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, >> Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? Frankly, >> it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what kind of >> religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their rhetoric is. >> >> "IN THE NAME OF GOD", what vast hypocrisy. Will it never end? >> >> Guy >You conveniently refer to Tibet, Cambodia and the Ukraine. At least >in Tibet and Cambodia, I am convinced that atrocities, killings and >mass movement of populations took place. (I know nothing about the >Ukraine, but I also know that the U.S. shares the guilt for what >happened to Cambodia. Remember Kissinger and his saturation bombing?) Tricky ol' me. After all, if the Communists would refrain from genocide, I'd find it less 'convenient' to criticise them. The US has responsibility for failing to defeat the Communists in Southeast Asia. The Communists bear all the responsibility for what they did after the war was over. Incidentally, they weren't 'driven' to murder 1/3 of the population by anything the US did. Many of the policies the Khymer Rouge implemented were described years before in the writings of their leaders. I think it is interesting that the US is at fault for what it does, _and_ for what the Communists do. Makes a lot of sense, right? >However, you also conveniently forget El Salvador, Chile, South Africa >and South Korea, to name a few of the U.S.'s staunch allies with rather >colorful resumes. They are staunch anti-communists, good capitalists >and the very model of the kind of democracy some in the U.S. would >like to export to the world, the model Reagan is bent on reintroducing >into Nicaragua. Wait a minute! I didn't say that I liked the current governments of South Africa or Chile. I said that it was hypocritical to complain about what anti-communists do and not about what the Communists do, especially since in many cases the Communist violations of human rights are much more serious. It is also wrong to lump all of those four countries together. Although S. Korea isn't totally democratic, it is vastly more democratic than any Communist country. Got a lot better standard of living and better health statistics than, for instance, N. Korea. El Salvador is gettting better. Also, notice that the stupendous Communist murders don't occur during the war, but _after_ the war is over. It is one thing to lay about with a heavy hand during a war (or a civil war). It's quite another thing to exterminate people by the millions after you have won. Re: The Ukraine. The reason you don't know about what happened in the Ukraine in 1929-1931 is that the so-called moralists who are so concerned with human rights don't want to let you know that during those years the Communist Party of the Soviet Union created an artificial famine in the Ukraine. The usual estimate is that 6 to 7 million people starved to death. Incidentally, the Ukraine produced plenty of grain during those years. It was stolen by the CP-SU. Never heard of it, eh? I guess that's the problem I'm talking about. If everyone knew about this, it might make people think that the USSR is a dangerous country. Of course I'm a fascist. Guy
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/11/86)
>Guy Ferraiolo writes: >>Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, >>Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? >Since the American religious groups protesting US policy in Central >America are acting on the assumption that the US is a democratic >society in which it is possible to influence government policy by >popular pressure and appeals to morality, it follows that Mr. >Ferraiolo believes that the governments of the Soviet Union and China >and the Khmer Rouge are likewise democratic and responsive to >popular pressure and moral appeals even from religious groups in the >US, to say nothing of their own citizens. So I think Mr. Ferraiolo >deserves a Hero of Labor medal for arguing that communist countries >are democratic and responsive to human rights appeals. Nice try. Because Cambodia, China and the USSR are not democratic, they are exempt from criticism? I'm sure you feel Chile is not democratic, therefore no one should say anything, right? I feel that if you want to make _moral_ statements, you should make those statements without regard to who is committing the 'wrong'. If you oppose all US actions against the Communists and NEVER speak out against the incredible crimes of the Communists, that is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, to me, means making statements that _appear_ to be based on moral or ethical grounds, but a really based on political or economic grounds. I think that anyone who is concerned enough about human rights to participate in a demonstration has the responibilty to inform themselves of the actual situation with respect to human rights. >>Frankly, it doesn't matter to me how self-righteous people are, what >>kind of religious positions they hold, or how hypocritical their >>rhetoric is. >Comments like this indicate the futility of discussion with a >close-minded person, whose mind is already made up and who knows the >answers already. I guess anyone who disagrees with Mr. Ferraiolo is >self-evidently hypocritical. No, people who protest against one side only are hypocritical. I am aware of some facts that not everyone knows, the Ukraine for one, that influence my point of view. It doesn't make me closed minded. >Net.politics.dogma is too much a forum for confident assertions by >people who believe that their thought processes are infallible, and >too little a forum for reasoned discussion by those who know that the >truth is usually elusive. But I suppose this is inherent in the >nature of a computer network. >-- >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Since this group is dominated by postings against the policies of the US, I wanted to make a few points. Incidentally, I don't believe that my thought processes are infallible, but if you want to change my mind you'll need at least some 'reasoned discussion'. By the way, was it just that you didn't like my posting, or did you have some facts that disproved my claims? Finally, I do admit to being closed minded in one regard. I will never accept the legitimacy of a self-appointed group which arrogates to itself the right to do _anything_ it feels necessary to accomplish its aims. That is (as far as I know it) the definition of a Leninist party. Guy
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/13/86)
>>Where were these people when the Tibetan, Cambodians, >>Ukranians, etc., etc., etc., were being slaughtered? >Since the American religious groups protesting US policy in Central >America are acting on the assumption that the US is a democratic >society in which it is possible to influence government policy by >popular pressure and appeals to morality, it follows that Mr. >Ferraiolo believes that the governments of the Soviet Union and China >and the Khmer Rouge are likewise democratic and responsive to >popular pressure and moral appeals even from religious groups in the >US, to say nothing of their own citizens. No, I think what he's saying is something like a) if you selectively protest against bad government policy in democracies only, the effect is to de-emphasize the atrocities that non-democracies are responsible for, b) that the oppressed in non-democratic countries deserve sympathy even though such sympathy is less likely to help, and/or c) that there is value in making such oppressions more widely known. According to your reasoning, anyone in the US who complained about concentration camps during WWII believed that Nazi Germany was democratic and responsive to popular pressure and moral appeals. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/13/86)
> In article <11000126@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > > > You have been fooled by the scaffold of deception that surrounds the > > Sandanistas and has from day 1. These people are Marxist-Leninists and > > have looked towards Cuba And the USSR as their source of ideology since > > the early stages of their revolution. Wake up. Don't use the excuse that > > the Sandanista policies are a result of US aggression; back at the start > > of their rule (post July '79) when the US was still friendly and giving > > them economic aid, Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and > > praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. > > Talk to the NICARAGUAN church officials about religious persecution - what > > happened to the Sunday televised mass, the Catholic radio station, the 16+ > > expelled priests and nuns, the Crusade for Christ ministry (an association > > of nonaligned college student-missionaries), etc. Who cares if a homeboy > > bishop went to Nicaragua and sat in Tomas Borge's inner sanctum and personally > > witnessed the nice man looking at a Bible? I agree with Simon - an earlier > > note complianing about the pro-Soviet stance of this net group - we > > desperately need some rational thought in this .group. > > I don't recall seeing anyone claiming that the Sandinistas are wonderful, > gentle, peace loving benefactors. *I* certainly never made any such claim! > Perhaps not on the net, but there's no shortage of people demonstrating on campuses and in front of Federal Buildings who do believe so -- or claim they believe it. > How is it that declaiming the support of the Contra Terrorists is > a pro-Sviet stance? Remember who the Contras ARE. > > They are, by and large, the remnants of the Samosa secret police and army. > They were hardly the democratic benefactors. They are interested only in > re-instating their own dictatorship over the Nicarauguan people, not in any > form of freedom (excepting possibly their freedom to oppress/repress). > Some members of the contras are former Somoza (please learn to spell the bastard's name -- it gives the impression you've read something about him if you can spell the name correctly) officials. One of those officials was in fact punished for being too liberal, and was sent abroad as a diplomat to get him out of Nicaraguan politics. Some of the contras are people who fought against Somoza, many former Sandinistas who became disillusioned with how the revolution was betrayed. Some of the contras are Miskito Indians, tired of getting shafted first by Somoza and then by the Sandinistas. Some of the contras are peasants who resent being drafted. Some are members of the democratic opposition. Your statements above are inaccurate in their oversimplification of Nicaraguan politics. > As I said in several other articles posted to this newsgroup, there > appear to be an awfully large number of seemingly intelligent individuals > positng here who are incapable of anything but binary reasoning. > Like the example you gave above about the contras? > Because I deplore and condemn the support of the Contra terrorists in no > way implies that I an any way support the Sandinista regime. I do not. > I *DO* believe that the United States should keep out of it completely. > The fact is that without US aid, the Contras would not be able to maintain > their fight. Thus, if we assume that economic aid to the Contras qualifies > as "American aggression" (a por choice of terms, I'll grant you), then it > follows that the major violence in Nicaraugua is indeed the result of > "American aggression", and that any measures taken by the Sandinistas to > reduce the danger of such violence is in direct response to same. > Without US aid, the Contras will limp along for years, fighting but not winning the war. I think an equally valid argument could be made that providing them with aid with speed up the process of overthrowing the Sandinistas, which will end the war and reduce the violence ... but the absurdity of this argument is pretty obvious. "Peace" is always available to any group or government -- just surrender and say you don't care about your liberties and lives. > I suggest that all of you "freedom loving" Americans who believe so strongly > in the support of terrorism by America (the Contras, Savimbe, etc.) go to one > of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! That's illegal under U.S. law. > I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and > above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. > *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit > euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. > Also illegal under U.S. law. > 'Nuff said. > > tom keller Definitions of terrorism are seldom shown on the net because the word is so emotionally charged. There are doubtless examples that can be cited of terrorism by the Contras. They claim that these are not official policy and that many of the documented incidents involve a commander who has since been executed for his actions. What's the truth? I'm not sure, but since similar assertions have been made about the Sandinistas (by one of Borge's assistants), it's hard to see a clear moral high ground in this war. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's clear that the Contras are more friendly to the U.S. than the Sandinistas.
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (03/13/86)
> > > > Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and > > praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. > > I would like to see evidence to backup this assertion. As I recall > Nicaragua abstained from voting on a resolution condemning the Soviet > invasion of Afghanistan in the UN. Thus their official position was > one of neither support nor condemnation. Does anyone have substantiated > evidence on this? My own evidence on the Nicaraguan vote is my > recollection, but I am confident my memory is correct. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Yes, Tim, your memory is correct. See last year's issue of NACLA Reports on Sandinista Foreign Policy. Also of interest in the realm of combatting disinformation is the current issue of *The Nation*, which documents a serious error in Robert Leiken's report in the *New York Review* with regard to a disturbance allegedly caused by Sandinista youths at the Conservative Party convention. They reprint a letter sent by the head of the Conservative's youth section to the *New York Review* (which it has thus far failed to print) explaining what really happened: the youth section of the Conservative party was who was causing the disturbance, arguing for the removal of certain party officials allegedly bribed by the US embassy (who were removed). This report is verified by another (US reporter) source who was there at the time. jeff m
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/14/86)
In article <724@mtuxn.UUCP> gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: >Re: The Ukraine. The reason you don't know about what happened in the >Ukraine in 1929-1931 is that the so-called moralists who are so concerned >with human rights don't want to let you know that during those years >the Communist Party of the Soviet Union created an artificial famine >in the Ukraine. The usual estimate is that 6 to 7 million people starved >to death. Incidentally, the Ukraine produced plenty of grain during those >years. It was stolen by the CP-SU. > >Never heard of it, eh? I guess that's the problem I'm talking about. >If everyone knew about this, it might make people think that the USSR >is a dangerous country. Of course I'm a fascist. Altho' not officially advertized or even admitted, in Soviet Union MOST people know (some remember) the tragedy of Ukraine and lower Volga basin. WHY Soviet Government starved the local population is quite plain and clear. The areas were known to be areas of popular disagreement with policies of collectivization, "trobule makers" and "bandits". Heavily armed raid brigades had combed through the countryside, taking every grain they could find and arresting farmers who had not surrendered their crops voluntarily. Next spring, even the collective farm ("colkhoz") members had trouble finding enough to plant. The confiscations were quite arbitrary and unreasonable. There was a clear evidence that the Government was trying to "break" the people in the area.... 3 years of confiscations, numerous bloody confrontations had "pacified" the land. Ukraine was "broken". So was the rest of the country. All the best and most productive farmers were either dead or "building a better future" on the other side of the Ural mountains.... When the Nazi troops were marching through Ukraine, peasants cheered and threw flowers to the German troops. They were selebrating their liberation. They co-operated willingly and gladly. They thought NOTHING could have been worse than 20+ years of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Little did they know..... Oleg Kiselev ucla-cs!oac6.oleg
vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/14/86)
Source of info on assertion: "Borge and compatriots traveling to USSR and praising them for Afghanistan invasion" My source is quotation from Humberto Belli, former Sandanista and former editor of the Op-Ed page of La Prensa, at a recent discussion on Sandanista ideology at the Univ. of Illinois. Regardless, Tim, your buddies are avowed communists and have espoused this for a long time... (I guess this would be ok if socialism worked, but it doesn't. Also, the Government of National Reconstruction has failed to acheive the goals of the revolution - or maybe it never planned to.) Lonnie.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/15/86)
In article <9852@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes: >>>Re: The Ukraine. The reason you don't know about what happened in the >>>Ukraine in 1929-1931 is that [random blame deleted]. >> >>Never heard of it, eh? I guess that's the problem I'm talking about. >>If everyone knew about this, it might make people think that the USSR >>is a dangerous country. Of course I'm a fascist. > >Altho' not officially advertized or even admitted, in Soviet Union MOST >people know (some remember) the tragedy of Ukraine and lower Volga basin. >[rest of the (fine) article deleted] Anyone who wants to learn more about the Soviet Union from the inside should read Alexandr Solzenitsyn _The Gulag Archipelago_. 1700+ pages, it is one incredible eye-opening reading experience. Very depressing and cathartic. His other books are also important and worthwhile reading. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/15/86)
In article <725@mtuxn.UUCP>, gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > > Nice try. Because Cambodia, China and the USSR are not democratic, > they are exempt from criticism? I'm sure you feel Chile is not democratic, > therefore no one should say anything, right? > > I feel that if you want to make _moral_ statements, you should > make those statements without regard to who is committing the 'wrong'. > If you oppose all US actions against the Communists and NEVER speak > out against the incredible crimes of the Communists, that is hypocrisy. Firstly, Guy, I disagree with your position categorically. As a citizen of this nation, I am partially responsible for any and all actions taken by this nation. I also have thge responsibility to express my concernes when I see this nation on what I consider to be the wrong course. Therefore, it is not only my privilege, but also my obligation to oppose actions of the U.S. which I believe to be in-humane and wrong. I believe that if I, and others who think as I do, speak loudly enough and often enough, we can affect American policy (this is, after all, the idea behind a democratic system). I have no such power to change the policies of communist regimes. Nor am I responsible for the actions of those regimes. I do not "owe" anyone equal time. Secondly, sir, you *ASSUME* that Mr. Sevener, myself, and others "never" speak out against the "incredible crimes" of the "communists". This is false. I know I do, and I have seen Mr. Sevener do so. Because, as I stated above, I am neither responsible for, nor capable of affecting the policies of, these "communists", I tend to concentrate my efforts on speaking to issues I consider to be both of import, and of a nature that they are open to my input. Thus, your argument is specious in both of its major points. > Hypocrisy, to me, means making statements that _appear_ to be based > on moral or ethical grounds, but a really based on political or economic > grounds. I think that anyone who is concerned enough about > human rights to participate in a demonstration has the responibilty to > inform themselves of the actual situation with respect to human rights. > Really? Yet, you are advocating the resistance to communism because it is "evil". Is not this a moralistic judgement? In fact, are not your objections to communism political and economic? Also, again, is it necessary to be actively aware of every human rights violation in the world, in order to protest those we see? Further, should we not in fact protest human rights violations committed by the U.S. ***MUCH*** more vociferously than those committed by the "evil communists" precisely *BECAUSE* America is supposedly above such atrocities? Should we then pattern our behaviour after that of the "communists"? > >Comments like this indicate the futility of discussion with a > >close-minded person, whose mind is already made up and who knows the > >answers already. I guess anyone who disagrees with Mr. Ferraiolo is > >self-evidently hypocritical. > > No, people who protest against one side only are hypocritical. I am > aware of some facts that not everyone knows, the Ukraine for one, that > influence my point of view. It doesn't make me closed minded. > See above comments. Try looking into the history of the White expansion of America, Guy. Then talk to me some more about the atrocities committed by Russia in the Ukraine. (yes, they committed atrocities, yes they were terrible, yes it reprehsnsible that they did so. This in no way abbrogates our responsibility for the atrocities we have committed) The fact that the Soviets (or any of those other "evil communists" are committing atrocities and promoting violence and bloodshed in no way justifies the U.S. doing the same. We are supposed to be better than they are, remember? So why pattern our behaviour after theirs? You remind me of the little kid who cries "But Janie did it too!" when caught and punished. > Since this group is dominated by postings against the policies of the US, > I wanted to make a few points. Incidentally, I don't believe that > my thought processes are infallible, but if you want to change my > mind you'll need at least some 'reasoned discussion'. Indeed, this newsgroup does appear, at present, to be dominated by postings deploring current U.S. policies. What better use for it? As I have stated repeatedly, by making *MUCH* noise about policies we consider harmful oor wrong, we have the opportunity to affect changes in those policies. As each of us, as citizens, are partially responsible for the results of these policies, this is incumbent upon us. Not being responsible for the results of the policies of any other nation, and not having the power or privilege of affecting changes in their policies, I choose not to expend much effort in discussing them here. Criticism is intended to improve the situation. My criticism of the U.S. *might* affect an improvement...my criticism of the "evil commiunists" will not. > By the way, was it just that you didn't like my posting, or did you > have some facts that disproved my claims? As you have offered no facts to support your claims, I for one feel no particular need to refute them. Many of them are obviously incorrect. Others are specious. Some are ridiculous. > > Finally, I do admit to being closed minded in one regard. I will > never accept the legitimacy of a self-appointed group which arrogates > to itself the right to do _anything_ it feels necessary to accomplish > its aims. That is (as far as I know it) the definition of a Leninist > party. > Odd. It seems to me that it also adequately describes the behaviour of the United States over the years. The frequency and manner in which we interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, the assisnations our C.I.A. has engineered, the puppet govenrments we have forced upon several nations all speak of a nation willing to do anything it feels necessary to further its goals. Remember, Mr. Ferraiolo, it was the United States which dropped the only two nuclear weapons ever used against human beings, to further its own goals. > Guy \ I am firmly convinced that the system of governance we have in the United States is the best system currently in use on this planet. That it is the *BEST* possible I do not believe. That it cannot stand considerable improvement, I do not believe. That it is, and should be, the focus of constant criticism and observation, I most firmly believe. I also believe that those who denigrate, those who accuse, those who viciously attack people who so believe, are not defending freedom, or the "American Way". They are fascists. Period. As someone once said: "The freedom to agree with you is no freedom at all." -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (03/15/86)
PLEASE, folks, watch your news-groups line! The Ukranian Famine is an interesting point for discussion, but it doesn't belong in net.religion. regards, Charli Phillips
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/16/86)
References: > My source is quotation from Humberto Belli, former Sandanista >and former editor of the Op-Ed page of La Prensa, at a recent discussion >on Sandanista ideology at the Univ. of Illinois. For chrissake, will you right-wing twits please learn how to spell SANDINISTA!!!!!!!! One suspects that you get all your information from TV and have never read a line about Nicaragua or ever heard of Augusto Sandino. >Regardless, Tim, your buddies are avowed communists and have espoused this >for a long time... This is an example of what we could call Labelthink. Labelthink means that if we can apply a label to someone or something, like "communist", "Leninist", or "totalitarian", we don't have to think about it any more -- the label tells us all we need or want to know about it. > (I guess this would be ok if socialism worked, but it doesn't. Also, the > Government of National Reconstruction has failed to acheive the goals of > the revolution - or maybe it never planned to.) The Nicaraguan government has some modest but important achievements to its credit -- to mention one, the literacy program was quite successful. There have also been remarkable improvements in public health and medical care. Please supply some evidence that the Junta for National Reconstruction never planned to achieve its stated goals. Have you ever actually read the Nicaraguan government's statement of its goals, published in 1982? Or the program of the FSLN, published in 1969? (Both are reprinted in *The Nicaragua Reader*, ed. Rosset and Vandermeer.) If you want to become informed about postrevolutionary Nicaragua instead of just spouting drivel, please obtain a book edited by Thomas Walker entitled *Nicaragua After the Revolution* (or *Nicaragua After Five Years*, I forget the exact title). Praeger is the publisher. It is a fat collection of articles by scholars in various fields on just about every conceivable aspect of Nicaragua after the revolution. All or nearly all of them did field research in Nicaragua. But if you drooling idiots can't be bothered to learn anything about the country, at least spare us the dreary displays, to which we are daily treated on net.politics, of massive ignorance and the total inability to be open-minded and entertain for even a millisecond the possibility that you might be mistaken in some respects on Nicaragua.... -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/18/86)
> [Tom Keller, in response to Guy Ferraiolo] > ... Further, should we not in fact protest human rights violations > committed by the U.S. ***MUCH*** more vociferously than those committed by the > "evil communists" precisely *BECAUSE* America is supposedly above such > atrocities? ------ No. Human rights abuses should be protested in proportion to their severity. By your backwards logic, you would punish the more humane societies for abuses you wouldn't even notice in the less humane societies. Why protest Hitler or Pol Pot at all? After all, everyone expects atrocities from them. Can you say "double standard", Tom. ----- > Indeed, this newsgroup does appear, at present, to be dominated by postings > deploring current U.S. policies. What better use for it? As I have stated > repeatedly, by making *MUCH* noise about policies we consider harmful oor > wrong, we have the opportunity to affect changes in those policies. As each > of us, as citizens, are partially responsible for the results of these > policies, this is incumbent upon us. Not being responsible for the results > of the policies of any other nation, and not having the power or privilege > of affecting changes in their policies, I choose not to expend much effort in > discussing them here. Criticism is intended to improve the situation. My > criticism of the U.S. *might* affect an improvement...my criticism of the > "evil commiunists" will not. ----- Wrong again. Ask any Soviet dissident about the importance of Western support for them. The Soviets are not totally impervious to Western public opinion. On the contrary, they make great efforts to influence it. ------ > The frequency and manner in which we > interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, the assisnations our > C.I.A. has engineered, the puppet govenrments we have forced upon several > nations all speak of a nation willing to do anything it feels necessary to > further its goals. Remember, Mr. Ferraiolo, it was the United States which > dropped the only two nuclear weapons ever used against human beings, to > further its own goals. ------ Yeah, like ending World War II. What a horrible goal. If the Allies had had those weapons in 1941 and dropped them, how many tens of millions of lives would have been saved? Of course, you would have opposed such a drop, with your mindset. Unfortunately, if the (relatively) bad guys interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and the (relatively) good guys do not, the (relatively) bad guys will end up calling the shots. This is the unfortunate reality of the world we live in. The problem is always one of choosing the lesser evil. Complete non-interventionism is the road to disaster. The world would be a far better place if the Western Powers had intervened in Germany in 1933 or 1936, or even 1938. The problem is to pick the right interventions and avoid the wrong ones. It's a very difficult problem indeed. We can do without your simplicities, just as we can do without the simplicities of the Right. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/18/86)
In article <11000127@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > > Source of info on assertion: "Borge and compatriots traveling to USSR > and praising them for Afghanistan invasion" > > My source is quotation from Humberto Belli, former Sandanista > and former editor of the Op-Ed page of La Prensa, at a recent discussion > on Sandanista ideology at the Univ. of Illinois. Alright, you were asked for your source, you gave it. For all I know, it is accurate, but then again, you offer no references. Perhaps you mis- interpreted Mr. Belli? Was Mr. Belli privy to all of the actions and opinions of the Sandinista leadership? He is a "former Sandinista". Just what does this mean? Why? Was he ejected, and if so, for what reasons? The point here is not to disparage your quote, or your source. I am simply arguing that your source is no more, and no less, reliable or believable than Mr. Sevener's sources, which many of you continue to disparage. > > Regardless, Tim, your buddies are avowed communists and have espoused this > for a long time... ****** F O U L ****** In the first place, *NOTHING* Mr. Sevener has said on this newsgroup could in any way be construed as a statement of brotherhood with the Sandinista regime. Nor has anything he said here justified any such assumptions on your part. This is an underhanded attempt to damage Mr. Sevener's personal reputation, apparently motivated by your inability to successfully attack his points. You attempt not only to imply that Mr. Sevener is in some way personally involved with the Sandinista regime, you further invoke "guilt by association" to imply that this being the case, Mr. Sevener is (or should be considered to be) a communist. In my opinion, you owe Mr. Sevener a direct apaology, and a public retraction` of your accusations. > (I guess this would be ok if socialism worked, but it doesn't. Also, the > Government of National Reconstruction has failed to acheive the goals of > the revolution - or maybe it never planned to.) And you are prepared to gaurantee that a terrorist organization lead by the former leaders of the Samoza secret police will install a free, open democracy, is that it? It is interesting that you claim the current Nicarauguan government has failed to achieve its goals. Not that I don't agree with that portion of your assesment, I do. What I fail to see is the significance of this in terms of the present discussion. Certainly, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the validity of American involvement, you can see that it would be virtually impossible for any regime, regardless of how well intentioned, to achieve the goals of the revolution while under constant, vicious attack by the Contras. Again, I would not go sa far as to claim that *ALL* of the failures, and *ALL* of the mis-deeds of the Sandinista regime (oh, my, an anti-Contra who admits the Sandinistas are not great?!? What'll they think of next?) are the direct result of this harassment. But many of them most obviously are. Moreover, you can hardly claim that America is not an active participant in the military (terrorist) harassment of the current govenrment. Minig of the harbors does not fit anywhere else in my book except under "act of war". This doesn't even involve the massive aid we provide to the Contras. "Humanitarian" indeed! Since when are guns, ammunition and jeeps "humanitarian aid". > > Lonnie. The fact is that while those arguing against aid to the Contra terrorists may not know *ALL* the facts, the fact that they so argue does *NOT* in any way associate them with any communist or communist sypathetic group. It *IS* possible to disagree with the actions of this nation in its persuit of "communism" without being either a communist or a communist sympathizer. But of course, you folks won't want to see that, because you only want to defend *YOUR* kind of freedom..the freedom to see things *YOUR* way! -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/18/86)
>>Since the American religious groups protesting US policy in Central >>America are acting on the assumption that the US is a democratic >>society in which it is possible to influence government policy by >>popular pressure and appeals to morality, it follows that Mr. >>Ferraiolo believes that the governments of the Soviet Union and China >>and the Khmer Rouge are likewise democratic and responsive to >>popular pressure and moral appeals even from religious groups in the >>US, to say nothing of their own citizens. [CARNES] > >No, I think what he's saying is something like a) if you selectively >protest against bad government policy in democracies only, the effect >is to de-emphasize the atrocities that non-democracies are >responsible for... [KEN ARROMDEE] Who has suggested protesting human rights abuses of democratic governments only? Look at my posting again, but this time read it. Ferraiolo says that American religious groups are *hypocritical* when they demonstrate against US policy but not against, say, Soviet policy. Since the religious groups are obviously trying to change or influence US policy by their protests, it follows that Ferraiolo believes that if they were not hypocritical and protested Soviet policies too, the Kremlin would be influenced by this pressure and might reconsider its occupation of Afghanistan and let all its Jewish citizens emigrate. Not only that, they might resuscitate the victims of Stalin's purges. So I nominated Guy for a Hero of Labor medal for his exalted view of the Soviet leadership. >According to your reasoning, anyone in the US who complained >about concentration camps during WWII believed that Nazi Germany was >democratic and responsive to popular pressure and moral appeals. According to your "reasoning", what I said was that any American who complains about human rights abuses in authoritarian or totalitarian countries believes that these countries are democratic and responsive to public opinion. But according to people who can read at the sixth grade level or higher, I didn't say that or even imply it. (I think net.politics needs a remedial reading course more than information about current events. There must be some people out there who have their secretaries read them the netnews. "Thanks, honey -- now hit the F-key so you can type my reply...") Tom Keller explained the point well. As a citizen of a democratic republic, it is not only my right but my duty to speak out when I believe my government's policies are foolish or immoral, in order to (i) change or influence those policies if possible, and (ii) influence public opinion in the US, raise the public consciousness, and promote public debate on such issues. That's how democracy is supposed to work. I don't speak out merely to point out that We're better than They are, as Guy and others apparently suggest. That's how fascism is supposed to work. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/19/86)
In article <1712@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Unfortunately, if the (relatively) bad guys interfere in the internal >affairs of other countries, and the (relatively) good guys do not, the >(relatively) bad guys will end up calling the shots. Highly debatable, Bill. The way you describe it, it sounds as if whoever intervenes in Third World Country X the most, wins, as if the people in those countries are just pawns to be manipulated by the White Hats and the Black Hats. But I think it is no accident that communist influence is strongest today where the US has attempted to intervene to "stop communism" (as in Vietnam and Cuba); and where the US has had the wisdom to allow self-determination by the people, there communist influence has declined, as in the Philippines and, I believe, Nigeria during and after the civil war, Angola after the Clark Amendment, and Zimbabwe, which may be left-leaning but is no surrogate of Moscow. Some may quibble about some of these countries, but I think the general point holds. Indeed, some countries, like Egypt and Ghana, have gotten fed up with the Russkies and kicked them out without any help from us. If the Reagan Administration gets its way and intervenes massively in Nicaragua to "stop communism", the one thing you may be certain of is that Nicaragua will be "another Cuba" within ten or fifteen years. To find out how this will happen, read the history of the Vietnam War. A principal reason is that the Nicaraguan Revolution is nationalist in origin, motivated by the desire for self-determination of the people of Nicaragua. This means for them, above all, getting out from under the boot of the Yankees, who engineered and supported the Somoza dictatorship for some fifty years. There is no way the Nicaraguans are going to let norteamericanos determine its future and its government. The surest way to support hardline Leninists in Managua is to give the Nicaraguan people the perception that their democratically chosen government, and the gains the revolution has achieved, are under attack by the United States or its proxies; this will drive them into the waiting arms, or gaping jaws, of hardline communists, on the theory that whoever supports them in opposing the United States can't be all that bad. Never, beginning from the time of Jefferson, has North America allowed self-determination for the people of Central America. Maybe it is too much to hope that wisdom will prevail now, when most Americans cannot locate Nicaragua on a map and are daily told by their government that a communist plot is afoot that threatens San Diego and El Paso. But it is about time that America started living up to its great belief, nobly expressed in the Declaration of Independence, in self-determination. For in the most Realpolitik sense, the US cannot advance its interests by betraying its ideals, which are its chief strength. A true realist understands that America's strength inheres primarily not in its military might, but in the Jeffersonian ideals it holds up and exemplifies to the world. Sometimes. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/19/86)
In article <600@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <11000126@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> > > >> I suggest that all of you "freedom loving" Americans who believe so strongly >> in the support of terrorism by America (the Contras, Savimbe, etc.) go to one >> of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! > >That's illegal under U.S. law. It is? What law? What about all the Americans who joined the Canadian military and the RAF before the US was officially involved in WWII? What about all the American mercenaries around the world today? Going somewhere to fight does not necessarily mean renouncing the US - you don't have to join their army (and besides, the contras are not really connected to any foreign government), you just have to fight. > >> I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and >> above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. >> *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit >> euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. >> > >Also illegal under U.S. law. > So just make a donation directly to the contras - that shouldn't be illegal. Besides, it would be rather inefficient to do it through the IRS anyway. -- --MKR "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/20/86)
> [Me] > >Unfortunately, if the (relatively) bad guys interfere in the internal > >affairs of other countries, and the (relatively) good guys do not, the > >(relatively) bad guys will end up calling the shots. --------- > [Richard Carnes] > Highly debatable, Bill. The way you describe it, it sounds as if > whoever intervenes in Third World Country X the most, wins, as if the > people in those countries are just pawns to be manipulated by the > White Hats and the Black Hats. But I think it is no accident that > communist influence is strongest today where the US has attempted to > intervene to "stop communism" (as in Vietnam and Cuba); and where the > US has had the wisdom to allow self-determination by the people, > there communist influence has declined, as in the Philippines and, I > believe, Nigeria during and after the civil war, Angola after the > Clark Amendment, and Zimbabwe, which may be left-leaning but is no > surrogate of Moscow. Some may quibble about some of these countries, > but I think the general point holds. Indeed, some countries, like > Egypt and Ghana, have gotten fed up with the Russkies and kicked them > out without any help from us. -------- Richard, you misinterpret what I said. I was simply saying that if the U. S. NEVER intervenes in other countries, and the Soviets are free to do so, Soviet power will expand. I was responding to Tom Keller, who opposed all such interventions. There are, of course, counter-productive interventions. You leave out the successful (from the point of view of the intervener) interventions, i.e, the U. S. in South Korea and the Phillipines (the 1950's insurgency), the British in Malaya and Oman, and of course the Soviet and/or Cuban interventions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Ethiopia, and Angola. You use selected (although valid, at least in part) examples to make a gross generalization, while leaving out examples supporting the other side. Some interventions work, some backfire. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/24/86)
> In article <600@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> In article <11000126@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > >> > > > > >> I suggest that all of you "freedom loving" Americans who believe so strongly > >> in the support of terrorism by America (the Contras, Savimbe, etc.) go to one > >> of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! > > > >That's illegal under U.S. law. > > It is? What law? What about all the Americans who joined the Canadian > military and the RAF before the US was officially involved in WWII? What about > all the American mercenaries around the world today? > Going somewhere to fight does not necessarily mean renouncing the > US - you don't have to join their army (and besides, the contras are not really > connected to any foreign government), you just have to fight. > The U.S. Government turned a blind eye towards the Americans who fought in the Canadian and British militaries -- just as it has done with Americans fighting alongside the Contras in Nicaragua. It is still illegal, and you are taking an awful chance that a change of administration could result in prosecution. > > > >> I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and > >> above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. > >> *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit > >> euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. > >> > > > >Also illegal under U.S. law. > > > > So just make a donation directly to the contras - that shouldn't > be illegal. Besides, it would be rather inefficient to do it through the > IRS anyway. > > -- > --MKR > If it is for humanitarian purposes, it's legal. If it is to buy military supplies it's illegal. I believe that's the reason that the Israel Bond program is set up to build hospitals and such (which frees up money for military purposes). I don't approve of these laws -- I'm very hostile to these restrictions on the rights of Americans. I was just pointing out that you MAY get yourself in trouble if you fight with the Contras or provide military assistance to them. > "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The > terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." > - Albert Einstein Thanks for admitting democracy is a stupid idea.
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/25/86)
> In article <600@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! > > > >That's illegal under U.S. law. > > It is? What law? What about all the Americans who joined the Canadian > military and the RAF before the US was officially involved in WWII? What about > all the American mercenaries around the world today? > Going somewhere to fight does not necessarily mean renouncing the > US - you don't have to join their army (and besides, the contras are not really > connected to any foreign government), you just have to fight. > Besides which, you neatly evaded the point by crying foul. You want the Sandinistas whipped? You want to puch Kaddafi around? Go do it yourself, you son of a bitch! Don't send the young men of our nation out to be killed for your goddamned political/military masturbations!!!!!!! (you're goddamned right this is a direct, personal attack!) > > > >> I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and > >> above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. > >> *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit > >> euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. > >> > > > >Also illegal under U.S. law. > > > Odd...it is exactly what the Reagan administration is encouraging wealthy conservatives to do... > So just make a donation directly to the contras - that shouldn't > be illegal. Besides, it would be rather inefficient to do it through the > IRS anyway. I say, if you are going to support a war action, then you had better damned well be willing to go put *YOUR* ass on the fucking line! I get sick and tired of your hawk-coward assholes who always want to send someone else in to do your dirty work!!!! (flame me all you want for the personal attacks, the filthy language, the bad grammar...I don't care..sometimes a thing just has to be said in the way is **HAS** to be said!!!) -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/26/86)
> > In article <600@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >> of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! > > > > > >That's illegal under U.S. law. > > > > It is? What law? What about all the Americans who joined the Canadian > > military and the RAF before the US was officially involved in WWII? What about > > all the American mercenaries around the world today? > > Going somewhere to fight does not necessarily mean renouncing the > > US - you don't have to join their army (and besides, the contras are not really > > connected to any foreign government), you just have to fight. > > > > Besides which, you neatly evaded the point by crying foul. You want the > Sandinistas whipped? You want to puch Kaddafi around? Go do it yourself, > you son of a bitch! Don't send the young men of our nation out to be killed > for your goddamned political/military masturbations!!!!!!! > > (you're goddamned right this is a direct, personal attack!) > 1. You assume that I support Reagan's policies in Central America. I do not. 2. You assume that I support sending U.S. troops into Central America. I do not. 3. Tom, you really need to READ BEFORE WRITING. It makes all the difference in the world. > > > > > >> I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and > > >> above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. > > >> *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit > > >> euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. > > >> > > > > > >Also illegal under U.S. law. > > > > > > > > Odd...it is exactly what the Reagan administration is encouraging wealthy > conservatives to do... > I oppose the law restricting the rights of Americans to donate time and labor to whatever cause they feel like. I would hope that would agree that this sort of activity should be private, not governmental. > > So just make a donation directly to the contras - that shouldn't > > be illegal. Besides, it would be rather inefficient to do it through the > > IRS anyway. > > I say, if you are going to support a war action, then you had better damned > well be willing to go put *YOUR* ass on the fucking line! I get sick and tired > of your hawk-coward assholes who always want to send someone else in to do your > dirty work!!!! > > > (flame me all you want for the personal attacks, the filthy language, the > bad grammar...I don't care..sometimes a thing just has to be said in the > way is **HAS** to be said!!!) > Actually, I'm going to flame you for the fact that you are a reactionary. You are operating very emotionally, and reacting to things that I don't believe in, and have never supported. Is it so difficult to read what people say before starting to blather? > tom keller Clayton E. Cramer "In or out of Central America, the foreplay is killing us."
jim@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Balter) (03/27/86)
In article <642@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The >> terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." >> - Albert Einstein > >Thanks for admitting democracy is a stupid idea. Einstein wasn't saying anything about democracy. Within any elite, the majority is still likely to be stupid. And those in power always retain that power through the efforts of the stupid, whether voters in a republic or soldiers in a more force-oriented system. You may think that democracy is a stupid idea, but it is an inevitable idea. Those with power will always to act some degree against the interests of those without power, and that degree will eventually become sufficient that those without power will become willing to challenge those with power (consider SA). Once a group has accepted the idea that they can have or deserve power, they will not readily give up this idea. Power will fluctuate among these groups largely according to their access of coercive tools. Political systems arise out of complex interactions of social forces, not out of the intellectual "stupidity" or "intelligence" of the system. This is a major problem I see with Libertarians and other Utopianists. They seem to think that if they just write the right set of laws everything will fall into place. -- -- Jim Balter ({sdcrdcf!ism780c,ima}!jim)