orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/09/85)
Frank Adams writes: > > Actually, I think the desire for world conquest represents a minor part of > Soviet policy, adhered to by a minority even in the armed forces. But the > desire for control of their neighbors is not a minor part of their policy. > This desire has historically and continues to result in the incorporation > of such areas into the state. Then there are new set of neighbors to > dominate ... If left unchecked, this will ultimately lead to world conquest. > The actions it produces are practically indistinguishable from those which > would be pursued if world conquest were the driving goal. > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka I am glad that you are willing to admit that "world conquest" is not a primary part of Soviet foreign policy. Having gotten that far you then say that "contol of their neighbors" is an important part of their policy. I agree. How is that *less* of a part of *any* nation's foreign policy? Let us look at our own checkered history of control of countries, neighbors or not. *Occupation of Nicaragua for years in the 20's *sending troops to Lebanon in 1956 *overthrowing the democratically elected govt of Mossadegh in Iran and replacement with the Shah's dictatorship in 1956 *overthrowing the democratically elected govt of Arbenz in Guatamela for replacement with military dictatorship in 1954 *aid to the French effort to retain their Indochinese colony, leading later to support for Ngo Dinh Diem and his refusal to hold elections to unify North and South Vietnam in 1956 *sponsorship of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba *involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected govt of Allende in Chile, which ended decades of Chilean democracy to be replaced by Pinochet's military dictatorship in 1973 *sending troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 *the mining of Nicaragua's harbors *funding of armed revolt in Nicaragua soon to come! *funding of the South African backed UNITA armed revolt in Angola Does this mean the US is set upon "world conquest"? tim sevener whuxn!orb
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/16/85)
In article <867@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Frank Adams writes: >> >> Actually, I think the desire for world conquest represents a minor part of >> Soviet policy, adhered to by a minority even in the armed forces. But the >> desire for control of their neighbors is not a minor part of their policy. >> This desire has historically and continues to result in the incorporation >> of such areas into the state. Then there are new set of neighbors to >> dominate ... If left unchecked, this will ultimately lead to world conquest. >> The actions it produces are practically indistinguishable from those which >> would be pursued if world conquest were the driving goal. >> >> Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka > >I am glad that you are willing to admit that "world conquest" is not a >primary part of Soviet foreign policy. Having gotten that far you then >say that "contol of their neighbors" is an important part of their policy. >I agree. How is that *less* of a part of *any* nation's foreign policy? >Let us look at our own checkered history of control of countries, >neighbors or not. > > [list of US foreign interventions and alleged interventions] > >Does this mean the US is set upon "world conquest"? All countries have wanted enough power to feel safe, and usually a little more, too. Through history, most countries have taken as much power as they thought they could get away with. The U.S. has not. We could (relatively) easily have taken control of the entire Western hemisphere any time this century. We could probably have gotten effective control of the entire world after WWII. Russia has generally taken as much power as they thought they could get away with. The U.S. is today the only nation powerful enough to keep them from taking it all. Given the nature of their government, I think we have a moral obligation to do so. (We also have a right to defend ourselves.) Most of the actions you cite (especially the more recent ones) are viewed by those who support them as contributing to this defense. One may doubt the correctness of their assessment in many cases. It is quite another matter to doubt their sincerity. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108