rehmi@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/20/84)
Much as I hate to say it, Gromyko summarized our country's attitude
quite accurately - our administration has a pathological obsession
with war.
I only hope that we survive Bonzo's reign and find ourselves under
someone who has some form of intelligence. Is there anyone out there who
would really rather stick with Reagan and his thugs?
-rehmi
--
By the fork, spoon, and exec of The Basfour...
Arpa: rehmi@{maryland,umd-csd} /* currently reliable */
CsNet: rehmi.umcp-cs@csnet-relay
Uucp:...!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!rehmi
...!{allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!rehmimokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (01/07/86)
Subject: Re: American Foreign Policy > American wars with the Indians and their virtual extermination > 1848 - American war with Mexico to obtain California and the Southwest > 1898 - American war with Spain to obtain Cuba, the Phillipines and ... > 1920's - American troops sent to occupy Nicaragua > 1954 - American overthrow of the democratic government of Jacob Arbenz > 1956 - American overthrow of the democratic government of Mossadegh > to be replaced by the military dictatorship of the Shah > 1954-1973 - American military intervention in Vietnam, in contravention > of 1954 Geneva Accords to settle Indochinese conflict. > 1973 - American covert support for the overthrow of the democratic > government of Salvador Allende ending decades of the tradition > of stable Chilean democracy ... > 1984 - American troops overthrow the government in Grenada > 1983 - American mining of Nicaragua's harbor ... > 1981-? American funding for contra campaign of terrorism in Nicaragua > 1981 American resumption of arms sales to South Africa's apartheid > government > I hope our foreign policy can come a lot closer to perfection than this!! > tim sevener whuxn!orb Interesting list. I have two corrections to make: 1. Mossadegh was disposed of in 1953 (You were close!). 2. You should give some credit to the British for this achievement also. Mossadegh was tough enough that getting rid of him somehow required a joint effort by the CIA and the MI6 (the British equivalent). "Well over 1.5 million" English pounds plus a "very large sum" in American money was spent just to "buy crowd leaders" and mobs (see reference). But I also have a question: Why is America a democracy only inside? Somehow the democratic process ceases to exist when we get to foreign policy matters. Decisions are made by the president and a few advisors around him. This seems peculiar when so many things are done in the name of "national security". I think we are bound to see more abuses of power as long as so much of it is concentrated in the hands of the few. As long as things are the way they are, doesn't the term "American democracy" need to be qualified? Farzin Mokhtarian Reference: End of Empire by Brian Lapping, Granada Publishing 1985. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The more I scan the void of oblivion, I see only the departed and the unborn."
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/07/86)
In article <38@ubc-vision.UUCP>, mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > Subject: Re: American Foreign Policy > > But I also have a question: > Why is America a democracy only inside? Somehow the democratic process > ceases to exist when we get to foreign policy matters. Decisions are > made by the president and a few advisors around him. This seems peculiar > when so many things are done in the name of "national security". I > think we are bound to see more abuses of power as long as so much of it > is concentrated in the hands of the few. As long as things are the way > they are, doesn't the term "American democracy" need to be qualified? > > Farzin Mokhtarian I, for one, think the foreign policy decision-making process has been delegated *more than enough* already. Didn't you notice the chaotic in-fighting within the Administration over just about all significant foreign policy questions? Think about how much worse it would be if Congress were responsible for even a part of these decisions. Or, Farzin, are you suggesting that the American people should be subjected to an endless stream of referendums to make these decisions? Regardless of how much we dislike President Reagan (and I find myself with mixed feelings), we must keep in mind that the pyons elected him. The answer to your question is: America is a *representative* democracy. The *US Constitution* says that the Executive branch is responsible for relations with other countries, with the Legislative branch overseeing. President Reagan is our elected representative to other nations. Therefore, the United States is a representative democracy, both on the inside and on the outside. Mike Lewis @ Purdue
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/07/86)
> [Farzin Mokhtarian] > Why is America a democracy only inside? Somehow the democratic process > ceases to exist when we get to foreign policy matters. Decisions are > made by the president and a few advisors around him. This seems peculiar > when so many things are done in the name of "national security". I > think we are bound to see more abuses of power as long as so much of it > is concentrated in the hands of the few. As long as things are the way > they are, doesn't the term "American democracy" need to be qualified? > Reference: End of Empire by Brian Lapping, Granada Publishing 1985. ---- No, it doesn't. The president is elected by the people. The president is also commander and chief of the armed forces. Democracy does not mean that the people make the decisions directly. The U. S. constitution does give Congress the sole power to declare war. It can be legitimately argued that undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam are unconstitutional. This has no bearing on whether the U. S. is a democracy. If Reagan unilaterally decided to push the button tomorrow, we will all be dead, and Reagan will have become the greatest mass murderer in history, but the U. S. will still have been a democracy. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (01/09/86)
Subject: Re: American Foreign Policy > The U. S. constitution does give Congress the sole power to declare war. > It can be legitimately argued that undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam > are unconstitutional. This has no bearing on whether the U. S. is a democracy > Bill Tanenbaum Why doesn't it have a bearing on whether the U. S. is a democracy? The constitution gives congress the sole power to declare war, in other words, the constitution says that when a decision has to be made about waging war, the democratic thing to do is to let the congress decide (That is if we assume that the constitution is a correct implementation of a democratic system). By waging a war in which the congress has been ignored, the president has made an undemocratic decision. This hurts the democracy, doesn't it? Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The future ain't what it used to be. But then, it never was."
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (01/09/86)
Subject: Re: American Foreign Policy > Didn't you notice the chaotic in-fighting > within the Administration over just about all significant foreign policy > questions? Think about how much worse it would be if Congress were responsible > for even a part of these decisions. I am not saying that the process would be quicker. But quick decision making is not necessarily better. Even if there were important time constraints involved, the congress and the administration could both be told that a decision has to be made by time t. If congress still failed to make up its mind, take the decision made by the administration. > The answer to your question is: > America is a *representative* democracy. The *US Constitution* says > that the Executive branch is responsible for relations with other > countries, with the Legislative branch overseeing. President Reagan > is our elected representative to other nations. Therefore, the > United States is a representative democracy, both on the inside and > on the outside. > > Mike Lewis @ Purdue OK, America is a *representative* democracy. But this is open to interpretation. When it comes to an important foreign policy decision, can a single person (no matter how intelligent and informed) realistically represent a large nation? The meaning of "with the Legislative branch overseeing" is vague. Just how much of a say does it have? Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Every sect has its own suspicions of me, I myself am just what I am."
afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (01/10/86)
In article <41@ubc-vision.UUCP>, mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > The meaning of "with the Legislative branch overseeing" is vague. Just how > much of a say does it have? > > Farzin Mokhtarian The Congress' oversight responsibilities with respect to foreign policy extend to declarations of war (I realize that past presidents have had consider- able room to maneuver on this one), and budgetary considerations (e.g. funding for Contras, foreign aid to various countries). I dispute that you could ever expect Congress (that beast with 400+ stomachs and no brain) to decide what brand of toilet paper to use in Congressional bathrooms in "time t", let alone an important foreign policy issue. I don't think that large parliamentary bodies are well suited to making decisions of this kind, and I think that the authors of our Constitution recognized this. Mike Lewis @ Purdue University
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (01/10/86)
In article <1541@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Farzin Mokhtarian] >> Why is America a democracy only inside? Somehow the democratic process >> ceases to exist when we get to foreign policy matters. Decisions are >> made by the president and a few advisors around him. This seems peculiar >> when so many things are done in the name of "national security". I >> think we are bound to see more abuses of power as long as so much of it >> is concentrated in the hands of the few. As long as things are the way >> they are, doesn't the term "American democracy" need to be qualified? >> Reference: End of Empire by Brian Lapping, Granada Publishing 1985. >---- > No, it doesn't. The president is elected by the people. The president >is also commander and chief of the armed forces. Democracy does not mean >that the people make the decisions directly. The United States is NOT a democracy, but rather a republic. The distinction is that the people of the United States elect individuals to govern "by the will of the people" (no cynical laughs, please). "True" democracy is that of the Greeks of Athens. What we have is a compromise between democratic ideals and practicality. -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!" -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here".
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (01/11/86)
In article <41@ubc-vision.UUCP> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes:
OK, America is a *representative* democracy. But this is open to
interpretation. When it comes to an important foreign policy decision,
can a single person (no matter how intelligent and informed)
realistically represent a large nation? [Farzin Mokhtarian]
I think that it is fairly obvious that no single person can represent the
opinions of every individual, in that there will be many different views
of ANY subject (N+1 views for N individual, minimum). The goal of the US
system is to elect (or, unfortunately, to appoint in some cases, although
George Schultz ain't terrible) individuals to REPRESENT the country as a
whole. By necessity, this means that things will rarely be exactly as you
want, and often decidedly not as you want. Being the member of any minority
group (be it religious, ethnic, political, or whatever) will exerbate the
situation even more - even an absolutely balanced treatment of a situation
between two differing sides, assuming it could exist, would have BOTH sides
probably feeling angry that we (the US) didn't feel that THEY were obviously
correct (In all issues like that, I know that I'M correct :-).
---
I sort of look at our system of government as a feedback system - If it
swings too far in any direction, then people tend to get elected in who
swing things back. This is not a fast response system, though. Additionally,
people can be mislead by candidates, can change their own opinions, and
can choose one particular issue as "THE ISSUE" when many are worthy of
consideration. Another method is also very significant - making sure
that your opinions are heard. Politicians like to stay in office, and are
usually flexable in the face of hard opposition (sometimes, too much so).
What I guess I'm saying is, if you don't like what's going on, make yourself
heard (legally, please)! Get everyone who agrees with you to make themselves
heard (and even those who don't...). You must constantly push to get your
views through. Write your congressman or representative (I would really,
REALLY, REALLY!!! love them to get feeds from this network). You must also
recognize that the views of the government officials and/or the majority of
the population may disagree with your views, in which case you will either
have to work to educate them, or live with the situation. And yes, I
recognize that people outside the US may die with the situation - the
purpose of our government is primarily to represent us, and thru action
or inaction we affect the lives and deaths of individuals in other countries.
I've heard about many countries on this network: Israel, Syria, Libya, Turkey,
El Salvadore, Nicaragua, to name but a few. Some of the US's actions I like
(more or less), some I strongly dislike. But we affect the lives of people
outside the US by whatever we do or don't do.
But basically, even doing NOTHING is bad...
I recognize that I sound a little preachy, but I happen to like the system,
although I don't like many of the elected representatives all that much.
Many of the faults in the system are due to people sitting on their asses
and letting the system do it's own thing. Democracy (whatever it's flavor)
isn't free - you have a responsibility to make it work.
Apathy is a tradition in the US - who am I to change a tradition?
Finally, I must ask the obvious - what do you propose as an alternative?
Mind you, I would oppose any attempt to change the system of government
in the US, because frankly I'm scared that it couldn't really be much better,
and it would very likely be very much worse.
--
-- Bob Gottlieb
UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb
Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720
Phone: (617) 263-9110
Foot: "You can't get there from here".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (01/17/86)
Subject: Re: American Foreign Policy Bob Gottlieb (gottlieb@alliant.UUCP) writes: > Finally, I must ask the obvious - what do you propose as an alternative? I haven't proposed any major change to the system. My focus was foreign policy issues. I'll stay with that here: The constitution was written a fairly long time ago when foreign policy issues were not quite as important as they are today. Many foreign policy decisions are just as important (sometimes more important) than internal issues nowadays. Even the effects are not as removed as they used to be. (Let's face it, these days you will think twice about travelling to even Europe, let alone (God forbid) the Middle East or South/Central America or parts of Africa. If you do go to Europe, make sure you stop over in London's airport to see the tradition- ally unarmed British policemen guarding the airport with machine guns.) So I think foreign policy issues should be debated just as rigorously as any other issues before any solutions to them are implemented. Surely, that can't be against America's national interests. Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The voice, the voice, the voice it is only the voice that remains."