jj@alice.UUCP (12/11/85)
I find it interesting that when Myers is advised of a news story counter to his beliefs he dismisses it as "untrue propaganda" and continues. When I (or other posters) have questioned some of Myer's sources, we're considered "American Apologists" and other such awful things. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "There are bridges, bridges in the sky, and bridges in the air..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/12/85)
> I find it interesting that when Myers is advised of a news > story counter to his beliefs he dismisses it as "untrue > propaganda" and continues. When I (or other posters) > have questioned some of Myer's [sic] sources, we're considered > "American Apologists" and other such awful things. > > (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj Actually, I can't remember a time in recent history when any of my sources have been openly questioned. Now, I'm sure you'll admit, jj, that not everything one reads or views is true -- therefore one has to have some form of criteria for determining what to believe and not to believe. Counterposed to things like Shirley Christian's (now a reporter for the NYT, so I'll soon be switching to the Christian Science Monitor for my mainstream news source) book supportive of the contras, government white papers, US and Mexican TV, and other mainstream powers-that-be sources, I have my own memories of what I saw in Nicaragua, acquaintances who have been there, a plethora of books, reports from non-mainstream media (NACLA Reports, The Guardian, The Nation, etc.), and my knowledge of Nicaraguan, Latin American, and world history. Now, the usenet article in question was a vague reference to a Mexican TV report received in the US. I know nothing about the station or program in question. However, I have been given little reason to doubt the credibility of the sources I rely on, e.g. Amnesty International, my own eyes and ears, etc. I also been faced during my brief existence with the incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. Don't you folks see the pattern here, or are you so a part of the pattern that it's a part of you? I argued that an EPS massacre of civilians is totally inconsistent with recent Nicaraguan history -- Gil Neiger went on to point out the contra practice (which they probably learned from the movie, *Where Eagles Dare*) of dressing up in captured uniforms to commit atrocities, which makes a great deal of historical sense. Again, beliefs are founded on a great deal of experiencial evidence, just like scientific theories and paradigms. A trip to Nicaragua Libre will do alot towards breaking you out of the US powers-that-be paradigm, if you will only take the chance. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/14/85)
In article <1788@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >I also been faced during my brief existence with the >incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American >War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it >has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any >of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint >US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala >in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic >in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before >WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. >Jeff Myers I would like to know what you mean by "progressive". Many of these cases don't seem at all to me like "progressive" governments, unless you're using "pro- gressive" as a generic term for Communist. What characteristics do you consider characteristics of "progressive" governments? Disclaimer: This does not mean I support all of these US actions. -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/15/85)
> >I also been faced during my brief existence with the > >incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American > >War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it > >has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any > >of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint > >US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala > >in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic > >in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before > >WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. > >Jeff Myers > > I would like to know what you mean by "progressive". Many of these cases don't > seem at all to me like "progressive" governments, unless you're using "pro- > gressive" as a generic term for Communist. What characteristics do you > consider characteristics of "progressive" governments? > > Disclaimer: This does not mean I support all of these US actions. The word ``governments'' here should probably be replaced with the phrase ``movements or governments.'' The Communist cases in the above would be Vietnam, Greece, and Cuba. Webster's Dictionary for Everyday Use (copyright 1971, Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc.) can define progressive as well as I: ``moving forward gradually; advancing; improving; favoring progress or reform.'' Jeff Myers
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/17/85)
In article <1804@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >> >I also been faced during my brief existence with the >> >incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American >> >War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it >> >has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any >> >of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint >> >US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala >> >in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic >> >in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before >> >WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. >> I would like to know what you mean by "progressive". Many of these cases don't >> seem at all to me like "progressive" governments, unless you're using "pro- >> gressive" as a generic term for Communist. What characteristics do you >> consider characteristics of "progressive" governments? >> Disclaimer: This does not mean I support all of these US actions. >The word ``governments'' here should probably be replaced with the phrase >``movements or governments.'' The Communist cases in the above would be >Vietnam, Greece, and Cuba. [dictionary quote omitted] >Jeff Myers What I meant was, what actions or characteristics of these particular move- ments or governments do you consider progressive? I know what "progressive" _means_, but why do you consider these particular ones as such? In many of these cases, the side the US supported was extremely bad (i.e. Vietnam) but it seems to me that the other side was also very bad and in no way deserves to be called "progressive". Furthermore, many of the ones that could be considered "progressive" are better than what was there before in some respects, but much worse in others, and often even though they might be better in some respects they "progressed" much more slowly than other non- Communist U.S. supported governments. (Second disclaimer: This does not mean that in _all_ of the cases you mentioned I consider the other side to be non-progressive.) -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/17/85)
In article <1788@uwmacc.UUCP> myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: > >Now, the usenet article in question was a vague reference to a Mexican >TV report received in the US. I know nothing about the station or program >in question. The station is TELEVISA, their national TV network. The program in question is their daily evening news program called "24 Horas" (24 Hours) which has been on the air for over a decade and has won many international awards because of their good journalism. In fact, they were one of the three recipients of last year's journalism awards by Spain's King Juan Carlos, a prestigious international award. Enough said, I think the reader gets the point about their credibility. >I argued that an EPS massacre of civilians is totally inconsistent with >recent Nicaraguan history -- Gil Neiger went on to point out the contra >practice (which they probably learned from the movie, *Where Eagles Dare*) >of dressing up in captured uniforms to commit atrocities, which makes a >great deal of historical sense. But not in this case. The journalist asked them whether they knew for sure if the attackers were real soldiers and their answer was affirmative. > A trip to Nicaragua Libre will >do alot towards breaking you out of the US powers-that-be paradigm, if >you will only take the chance. Contra sympathizers have gone to Nicaragua and they have said upon returning that they will support even more strongly the contras. But of course, you and they are in no neutral position so if I wanted an objective report on Nicaragua, I wouldn't ask you nor them. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/18/85)
> [Jeff Myers] > I also been faced during my brief existence with the > incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American > War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any > of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint > US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala > in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic > in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------- Cuba? Vietnam? Progressive? I'd have to admit that both Cuba and Vietnam have made a lot of progress. Progress in making a large number of their people want to live elsewhere. How can anyone take Jeff Myers' opinions about the Sandinistas seriously when we all can see what he truly admires? Of course, this does not imply that his facts and sources are necessarily wrong. However, seeing what a true believer Mr. Myers is, I find it difficult to give his opinions much credibility, at least when he talks about the Sandinistas. ------------------- > Don't you folks see the pattern here, or are you so a part of the pattern > that it's a part of you? ------------------- You mean the Cuba, Vietnam pattern, Jeff? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/20/85)
> > I also been faced during my brief existence with the > > incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American > > War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any > > of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint > > US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala > > in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic > > in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ------------------- > Cuba? Vietnam? Progressive? > I'd have to admit that both Cuba and Vietnam have made a lot of progress. > Progress in making a large number of their people want to live elsewhere. > How can anyone take Jeff Myers' opinions about the Sandinistas seriously > when we all can see what he truly admires? > ------------------- > > Don't you folks see the pattern here, or are you so a part of the pattern > > that it's a part of you? > ------------------- > You mean the Cuba, Vietnam pattern, Jeff? > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Well, a lot of people have left, but a lot more stayed. In Vietnam, a lot more died for their country (Vietnam & the US). You probably don't realize, Bill, that the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence (written in 1945 or so) was modeled after our own. Didn't matter much to the mucky-mucks in Yalta -- Vietnam went back to the French, who needed increasing US aid to maintain their hold on the country. We then proceeded to put a bomb crater in about every square mile of south-east Asia. If the US had followed the advice of some of the far-sighted US advisors in the country in 1945, who knew Ho Chi Minh and the people he led, things would have turned out much better for Vietnam, for the US, and for the world. That's the pattern I'm talking about, you yahoo -- systematic quashing of nationalistic, anti-imperialist, Third World movements. As Noam Chomsky points out (and I believe correctly), the Vietnam War was politically a victory for US imperialism, because the massive destruction done to the country insured that Vietnam could not become an economically viable beacon to other countries. Take another, less emotionally laden example -- the Spanish Republic. No aid was given by other countries, including the US, except for the USSR and Mexico. The US government and the French did all that they could to prevent people and supplies reaching the Republicans -- Abraham Lincoln Brigade volunteers had to say they were just travelling to France as tourists when leaving the US. Are ``Third World'' nations just being paranoid when denouncing the foreign policy of the US? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/21/85)
> Enough said, I think the reader gets the point about their credibility. > Roger Re TELEVISA. > >I argued that an EPS massacre of civilians is totally inconsistent with > >recent Nicaraguan history -- Gil Neiger went on to point out the contra > >practice (which they probably learned from the movie, *Where Eagles Dare*) > >of dressing up in captured uniforms to commit atrocities, which makes a > >great deal of historical sense. > > But not in this case. The journalist asked them whether they knew for sure > if the attackers were real soldiers and their answer was affirmative. Did they see their dogtags? My impression is that the contras are real soldiers, too. Again, did they say what village or area this occurred in? > > A trip to Nicaragua Libre will > >do alot towards breaking you out of the US powers-that-be paradigm, if > >you will only take the chance. > > Contra sympathizers have gone to Nicaragua and they have said upon > returning that they will support even more strongly the contras. > But of course, you and they are in no neutral position so if I wanted > an objective report on Nicaragua, I wouldn't ask you nor them. > -- > Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department That's why I encourage people to go for themselves and form their own judgements. Just about anybody reading this newsgroup has the economic means to do so (or will soon after they graduate). Now to your articles from the LA Times -- I'm glad to see people posting sources more, not that I like being confronted with tales I like not. Many people are apprehensive about reports of detentions, etc. going on in Nicaragua, because it is a sign that US foreign policy is starting to bear fruit, the hardline position is getting stronger due to the continuation of the war. The FSLN in no monolithic entity, any more than any large party is in any country -- but the basic problem the country faces has not changed. The LA Times is a paper I respect. But then, I used to respect the New York Times -- then they hired Shirley Christian. My money will now be moving to the Christian Science Monitor, which I have had a subscription to off and on over the years. Jeff Myers
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/23/85)
> > > [Jeff Myers] > > > I also been faced during my brief existence with the > > > incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American > > > War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any > > > of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint > > > US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala > > > in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic > > > in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ------------------- > > [Me] > > Cuba? Vietnam? Progressive? > > I'd have to admit that both Cuba and Vietnam have made a lot of progress. > > Progress in making a large number of their people want to live elsewhere. > > How can anyone take Jeff Myers' opinions about the Sandinistas seriously > > when we all can see what he truly admires? > > ------------------- > > > [Jeff] > > > Don't you folks see the pattern here, or are you so a part of the pattern > > > that it's a part of you? > > ------------------- > > You mean the Cuba, Vietnam pattern, Jeff? ----------- > [Jeff] > [Stuff Omitted] > That's the pattern I'm talking about, you yahoo -- systematic quashing of > nationalistic, anti-imperialist, Third World movements. ----------- I know what pattern YOU'RE talking about Jeff, and (surprise!) I agree with much of what you say about U. S. foreign policy. My question to you is when you will wake up and see the OTHER pattern, the brutal totalitarian nature of Cuba, Vietnam, and other Marxist "anti-imperialist" movements you so laud. When you praise Cuba and Vietnam, and then procede to pile sainthood on top of the Sandinistas, you are merely adding credence to the claim that Nicaragua is another Cuba. I am no admirer of the Contras, and am well aware of the suffering they are causing, yet when I read you're postings I find myself rooting for them as the lesser evil. Your postings are counterproductive. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (12/26/85)
> > I also been faced during my brief existence with the > > incontrovertible fact that the United States, since the Spanish-American > > War, has gone out of its way to crush any truly progressive government it > > has been able to get its hands on. I'm willing to go into detail on any > > of the following cases: the Philippines immediately following the joint > > US-Filipino defeat of the Spanish; Chile in the early 1970's; Guatemala > > in 1954; Nicaragua from the 1920's till the present; the Dominican Republic > > in 1965; Vietnam from 1945-1975; Greece following WWII; Spain just before > > WWII; Cuba from 1960 till the present; ad infinitum. >I know what pattern YOU'RE talking about Jeff, and (surprise!) I agree with >much of what you say about U. S. foreign policy. My question to you is >when you will wake up and see the OTHER pattern, the brutal totalitarian nature >of Cuba, Vietnam, and other Marxist "anti-imperialist" movements you so laud. >When you praise Cuba and Vietnam, and then procede to pile sainthood on top of >the Sandinistas, you are merely adding credence to the claim that Nicaragua >is another Cuba. I am no admirer of the Contras, and am well aware of the >suffering they are causing, yet when I read you're postings I find myself >rooting for them as the lesser evil. Your postings are counterproductive. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Frankly, Bill, I don't know enough about present-day Vietnam or Cuba to have an informed opinion as to the overall quality of their societies. My purpose in the article in question was to list cases where the US has IMMEDIATELY jumped in to smash independence movements which it feels it can't control: independence movements bent on modifying the old, hierarchical power structure. I know much more about the diplomatic and military history of the two countries than about the present there. I'm awed that you consider my postings so important that you are willing to switch your allegiance based upon them. Seems that the power of the pen has been replaced by the power of the keyboard. Why not do some outside reading? You say that you agree with much of what I say. If that is true, may I ask what you have done about these feelings lately? Voted for Gary Hart in the last Democratic Primary, perhaps? ;-)> -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@rsch.wisc.edu UUCP: ..!{harvard,ucbvax,allegra,topaz,akgua,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers BitNet: MYERS at WISCMACC
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/27/85)
In article 1840@uwmacc.UUCP myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) writes: >Well, a lot of people have left, but a lot more stayed. In Vietnam, a lot >more died for their country (Vietnam & the US). You probably don't realize, >Bill, that the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence (written in 1945 or so) >was modeled after our own. Didn't matter much to the mucky-mucks in Yalta -- >Vietnam went back to the French, who needed increasing US aid to maintain >their hold on the country. We then proceeded to put a bomb crater in about >every square mile of south-east Asia. Let's try to get our stories straight. We did not put a bomb crater in about every square mile of south-east Asia in support of French imperialism. We didn't do very much in support of French imperialism at all. We did support it officially, but our interests in the French alliance in Europe were (and still are) far more important to us than all of south-east Asia. We did do a lot of bombing in Vietnam in support of the government of South Vietnam. That government was far better than the North Vietnamese government at that point (which isn't saying much). An interesting comparison: while the U.S. was fighting in South Vietnam on behalf of the government there, there were hardly any refugees. When that government lost, there was a flood of them. The Soviet Union is fighting in Afghanistan on behalf of its government. Guess what? There are a flood of refugees. >If the US had followed the advice of some of the far-sighted US advisors in >the country in 1945, who knew Ho Chi Minh and the people he led, things would >have turned out much better for Vietnam, for the US, and for the world. Maybe yes, maybe no. All we know for sure is that the government he actually set up is pretty awful. There are extenuating circumstances, but we *don't* know what he would have done if unopposed. Similar things were said about Mao when he took over China, and about Castro when he took over Cuba. Similar things were said about the Sandinistas when they took over Nicaraugua. >As Noam Chomsky points out (and I believe correctly), the Vietnam War was >politically a victory for US imperialism, because the massive destruction >done to the country insured that Vietnam could not become an economically >viable beacon to other countries. Like North Korea? >Take another, less emotionally laden example -- the Spanish Republic. No >aid was given by other countries, including the US, except for the USSR and >Mexico. The US government and the French did all that they could to prevent >people and supplies reaching the Republicans -- Abraham Lincoln Brigade >volunteers had to say they were just travelling to France as tourists when >leaving the US. The Spanish Civil War rapidly became a contest between Fascism and Communism. Once that happened, Spain could not possibly be the winner. The U.S. was misguidedly neutral in that war -- if we (or the French or British) had supported the Republic, we might have saved some sort of genuine democracy. Unfortunately, the public mood at that point made such support impossible. >Are ``Third World'' nations just being paranoid when denouncing the foreign >policy of the US? No, jealousy has a lot to do with it. U.S. foreign policy has been far from perfect; but no other nation with anywhere near our power has behaved nearly as well. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (12/30/85)
>> If the US had followed the advice of some of the far-sighted >> US advisors in the country in 1945, who knew Ho Chi Minh and >> the people he led, things would have turned out much better >> for Vietnam, for the US, and for the world. > Maybe yes, maybe no. All we know for sure is that the > government he actually set up is pretty awful. There are > extenuating circumstances, but we *don't* know what he would > have done if unopposed. No. We know more than that. We know that Ho Chi Minh was already a committed communist and that he betrayed people who were stupid or unlucky enough to collaborate with him. Those allegedly far-sighted advisors needed glasses badly. David Hudson
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (12/30/85)
-- > We did do a lot of bombing in Vietnam in support of the government of > South Vietnam. That government was far better than the North > Vietnamese government at that point (which isn't saying much)... Since many netniks may be too young to remember, let's try to be a little more accurate about this. The govt. the US intervened "in support of" was a govt. that the CIA itself installed. And I'd be curious as to what sort of index one would use to demonstrate that the S Vietnamese govt. was "far better" than the N Vietnamese. Diem and his successors were, after all, corrupt from stem to stern and guaranteed no basic rights to their citizenry. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 30 Dec 85 [10 Nivose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/31/85)
> > [Frank Adams, I think] > > We did do a lot of bombing in Vietnam in support of the government of > > South Vietnam. That government was far better than the North > > Vietnamese government at that point (which isn't saying much)... -------------- > [ken perlow] > Since many netniks may be too young to remember, let's try to be a > little more accurate about this. The govt. the US intervened "in > support of" was a govt. that the CIA itself installed. And I'd be > curious as to what sort of index one would use to demonstrate that > the S Vietnamese govt. was "far better" than the N Vietnamese. > Diem and his successors were, after all, corrupt from stem to stern > and guaranteed no basic rights to their citizenry. -------------- Ken, how about counting boat people and other refugees? Seems like a good enough index to me. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/03/86)
In article <1300@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> We did do a lot of bombing in Vietnam in support of the government of >> South Vietnam. That government was far better than the North >> Vietnamese government at that point (which isn't saying much)... > >Since many netniks may be too young to remember, let's try to be a >little more accurate about this. The govt. the US intervened "in >support of" was a govt. that the CIA itself installed. And I'd be >curious as to what sort of index one would use to demonstrate that >the S Vietnamese govt. was "far better" than the N Vietnamese. >Diem and his successors were, after all, corrupt from stem to stern >and guaranteed no basic rights to their citizenry. Right, but the North Vietnamese government actively oppressed its people. As I said, being better than the North Vietnamese government isn't saying much. (By the way, I am not too young to remember. I opposed the U.S. part in the war at the time, and still believe it was a mistake. But it was not a mistake by nearly as large a margin as some people would have you believe; the U.S. involvement was not a major immorality, but a miscalculation. If the calculations on which we decided to become involved had been correct, the involvement itself would have been.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108