jj@alice.UUCP (03/18/86)
Tom Keller says many times that he is NOT responsible for what other nations do, that he is only responsible for the actions of the US. He goes on to detail some of the actions that the USSR is alledged to have done, and seems to say that they don't make any difference because "it didn't happen here". I have a serious problem with that, in that IF Mr. Keller takes responsibility for the actions of his own country, then when his country is negligent in attending to the suffering of humans everywhere, is he not guilty of negligence? Furthermore, by arguing that the actions of other countries (USSR in particular) should not, in any way, shape or form, affect the actions fo the US, is he not failing in his responsibility to protect his country from forces that he agrees are amoral? Is that not negligence as well? Is it not negligent to fail to protect one's self from forces that have both economic and control-based motives to eliminate one's coutnry? It seems to me that there is a balance to everything, including international relations, and that Tom would have us act strictly in isolation, as opposed, perhaps, to some other individuals on this net who would have us act everywhere in the name of "justice". Both of these positions betray any balanced view of the world, and represent extremes that have been popular in this country at one time or another. One of them was responsible for Pearl Harbor, and the other was responsible for Vietnam, for example. I propose that both extreme positions are inherantly suicidal and must be avoided. I further propose that the US is currently, as is shown by the general ignorance of world affairs, leaning far toward the isolationist stance, and away from a stance in which the US takes action to protect itself BEFORE the mainland and population are involved. Further national autism such as Mr. Keller demonstrates is clearly not indicated if this is the case. The difficulty with my position is that I would like to see a more even-handed national leadership in charge when the US tries to take back some of the world leadership (as one cannot be a leader without followers!). Unfortunately, given the current suicidal political climate (liberal guilty bleeding-heart kill-me-if-it-makes-you-feel-better versus AMERICA-FIRST-LOVE-IT-OR-LEAVE-IT, sword-of-the-lord, reactionary, vicious, freedom hating conservative) just doesn't offer much choice. It's clear that voters MUST shake of 20+ (starting with LBJ's deliberate smearing of Barry Goldwater) years of being willing to believe anything that sounds good, and start to force concrete statements on real issues. In addition, it's clear that 'one issue' races must come to an end. Toward that, the disproportionate representation of extremists in both political parties must be reduced. This whole suicidal road is paved, at least currently, ONLY with apathy. Perhaps we all ought to get our heads out of the sand and look about before the tide comes in? -- THE TEDDY BEAR HAS LOST PATIENCE, PICNIC AT 1:00PM SATURDAY! "It's just a few more hours, that's all the time you've got!" (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj