orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/23/86)
Do you suppose we would ever see these headlines?
"AMERICAN TROOPS IN TURKEY, SOVIETS PROTEST AMERICAN INTERVENTION"
Of course not.
Yet, in fact , American troops are stationed in more countries
throughout the world than any other nation's troops. American troops
are indeed stationed in Turkey, on the Soviet border, they are
stationed in Honduras, on the Nicaraguan border, and so forth.
Would anyone in the American media ever *consider* suggesting
that the stationing of such troops at the bequest of other
nations was grounds for another country to invade such nations?
Wouldn't such a suggestion immediately be labelled ludicrous and
ridiculous? Of course.
And yet, just as the American media seem contented with a totally
one-sided view of "terrorism" which equates it with the killing
of *American* civilians by our "enemies", so they simply accept
and parrot the rationale that Soviet or Cuban troops invited to
any other country gives a justification for invasion or military
intervention. This, once again, is sheer hypocrisy and blatantly
nationalistic bias. If the Soviets published rumors of Soviet
action against Turkey because of American troops there, the
American media would be whipped into a frenzy. Yet the same media
simply echos Eliot Abrams as he charges that Cuban troops in
Nicaragua are grounds for invasion.
This is not to say that I am voicing support for either American
troops in Honduras or Cuban troops in Nicaragua. Indeed one of
the key provisions of the Contadora agreement called for the
withdrawal of *all* foreign troops from Central America.
But I cannot see how we can say that a repressive military
dictatorship in Turkey has the right to ask American troops
to be stationed there, while Nicaragua or any other country
has no right to ask other nation's troops to be stationed in
their own country. What is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
This is another way in which American media present a one-sided
"America can do anything we want" view of the world.
This view is both unquestioned and unchallenged in the mainstream
media.
It goes without saying that most Americans come to accept the
same unquestioned assumption coming at them from all sides of
the American media.
tim sevener whuxn!orbcramer@kontron.UUCP (01/24/86)
> Do you suppose we would ever see these headlines? > > "AMERICAN TROOPS IN TURKEY, SOVIETS PROTEST AMERICAN INTERVENTION" > > Of course not. > And yet, just as the American media seem contented with a totally > one-sided view of "terrorism" which equates it with the killing > of *American* civilians by our "enemies", so they simply accept > and parrot the rationale that Soviet or Cuban troops invited to > any other country gives a justification for invasion or military > intervention. This, once again, is sheer hypocrisy and blatantly > nationalistic bias. If the Soviets published rumors of Soviet > action against Turkey because of American troops there, the > American media would be whipped into a frenzy. Yet the same media > simply echos Eliot Abrams as he charges that Cuban troops in > Nicaragua are grounds for invasion. > > This is not to say that I am voicing support for either American > troops in Honduras or Cuban troops in Nicaragua. Indeed one of > the key provisions of the Contadora agreement called for the > withdrawal of *all* foreign troops from Central America. > But I cannot see how we can say that a repressive military > dictatorship in Turkey has the right to ask American troops > to be stationed there, while Nicaragua or any other country > has no right to ask other nation's troops to be stationed in > their own country. What is good for the goose is good for the > gander. > Mr. Sevener: as usual, your ignorance of current events is astounding. Turkey had an election a little while back. While the election process wasn't as democratic as the U.S. or Western Europe, by comparision with the elections in Hungary (which you have expressed such enthusiam for) and the elections in Nicaragua, Turkey's election was quite democratic. > This is another way in which American media present a one-sided > "America can do anything we want" view of the world. > This view is both unquestioned and unchallenged in the mainstream > media. > It goes without saying that most Americans come to accept the > same unquestioned assumption coming at them from all sides of > the American media. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb American mass media always struck me as bending over backwards to justify the Soviet side of things. But even this isn't enough for you -- you want them to be completely supportive of all Soviet moves, no matter how evil. The double standard you constantly refer to does exist -- but you seem to want to replace it with a different double standard.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/27/86)
I wrote: > > But I cannot see how we can say that a repressive military > > dictatorship in Turkey has the right to ask American troops > > to be stationed there, while Nicaragua or any other country > > has no right to ask other nation's troops to be stationed in > > their own country. What is good for the goose is good for the > > gander. > > To which Sam Cramer replied: > > Mr. Sevener: as usual, your ignorance of current events is astounding. > Turkey had an election a little while back. While the election process > wasn't as democratic as the U.S. or Western Europe, by comparision > with the elections in Hungary (which you have expressed such enthusiam > for) and the elections in Nicaragua, Turkey's election was quite democratic. > The point was *not* whether Turkey currently has an official military dictatorship or not. Nicaragua had elections in 1984 which were proclaimed by international observers to be relatively free and fair. But that is irrelevant. The question is whether countries have the right to ask another nation's troops to be stationed there, regardless of their official form of government. Further, the question is whether *some other country* has the right to either outright invade or conduct a war by proxy against another country which invites foreign troops. I do not believe that *any* nation has this right. Yet this is exactly the right which Weinberger and Reagan claim for the US in Nicaragua and a view which the American media acquiesce in accepting. > From Sam Cramer > American mass media always struck me as bending over backwards to justify > the Soviet side of things. But even this isn't enough for you -- you > want them to be completely supportive of all Soviet moves, no matter > how evil. The double standard you constantly refer to does exist -- > but you seem to want to replace it with a different double standard. I expressly do *not* want the American media to ignore the Soviet's war and terrorism in Afghanistan - if anything they have hardly covered the war in Afghanistan enough. On the other hand I also do *not* want the American media parroting onesided justifications for violence committed against other countries when they do not apply the same critieria to the US. tim sevener whuxn!orb
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (01/30/86)
>American mass media always struck me as bending over backwards to justify >the Soviet side of things. American mass media has always struck me as trying to make as much noise as is possible. Sometimes that may look like justifying a Soviet point of view. But usually it is just so much happytalk glib ignorance. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720