jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (08/23/83)
I subscribed to net.politics because I hoped to see intelligent
discussions of political issues, comparisons of political systems,
proposals for making political systems more responsive to
societies or whatever else people consider the role of government to be,
rational discussion of what that role should be, and various other
intelligent rational discussion. I did expect some occasional
flaming from idiots like rabbit!jj, but I expected that to get shot down
and overridden by more factual arguments. But instead I continually
see fanatical ideological ravings from people who would never accept
a discussion at that level about some technical design issue.
When someone as intelligent as Kenneth Almquist can say in the same
paragraph
"
Does anyone out there know enough about the history of US/Nicaraguan
relations to evaluate this claim?
...
And rather than teaching school children that it
would be nice to be friends with the US, they teach them that America
and Americans are hateful.
"
then my hopes for such rational discussions tend to vanish.
You may strongly suspect that this is the case. You may have read
or heard testimony that this is the case. But to be convinced of it,
to state it as fact, as an argument against the claim "these guys would
very much prefer to get along with US" can only come from a prior ideological
assumption; it does not come from logic or induction. Arguments at this
level are stupid and dishonest. Please, people, be true to your intelligence!
Some other points from ka's article:
They may have seemed honest, but I doubt if they were. I recall that
they denied shipping arms to the rebels in El Salvedor [sic]; and I don't
think that there is any real doubt that they have done exactly that.
Without evidence of such shipments, there must be real doubt.
The State Department has yet to come forward with such evidence.
Please do not be so dishonest as to claim they have without offering
documentation. And do not offer State Department claims that they
have evidence as evidence.
There certainly was a period when Reagan was making even the
Russian [sic] propaganda machine sound like the voice of reason and common
sense on the issue of arms control.
So many of the attitudes of yourself and others seem to be driven by the
ideological notion that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.
Why aren't you proud of our massive and sophisticated propaganda machine?
What knowledge do you have of the Soviet's propaganda machine that you
consider unbiased? What do you know of the Soviet's attitudes toward
arms control? You may be convinced that the Soviets plan to take over
the world by any means possible, that that is basic to the Communist charter.
Did you come to that conclusion through the same rational means by which
you would choose a C compiler? A friend of mine told me that he really
does know that Russians are bad people compared to us, because they
drink a lot and that leads to violence. Are we not fools?
You mention some hostile acts on both sides:
Nicaragua U.S.
--------- ----
shipped arms to eliminated foreign aid, while
El Salvadoran rebels giving aid to neighbors
imported Cuban advisors financing Nicaraguan rebels who
aim to overthrow the government
teaching children that
Americans are hateful
and suggest that the question is: who was hostile first?
I suggest that the nature and accuracy of these hostilities is a more
significant question. Interfering with the Nicaraguans' right to import
advisors from where ever they want is rather hostile, especially when
much of the advice is probably agricultural. And we all know that
many Americans *are* hateful (perhaps you meant hateable?). What do we
teach *our* children? The U.S. support for the overthrow of the
Nicaraguan government is explicitly hostile and a violation of international
law. You may feel that such support is nevertheless desirable in order
to stop the Marxist Advance; be honest enough to say so and to defend that
position, with factual evidence rather than foolish repetitions about
our doorstep. But don't be such an ass as to claim that the Nicarguans
have engaged in hostilities toward the U.S. that warrant the overthrow
of their government.
In particular, no reference was made to Carter's attempts
to be friendly with the Sandanistas [sic] by either the interviewer or the
Sandanistas [sic] being interviewed.
There were not only attempts, but successes. Carter was not merely friendly,
but in fact actively worked for the elimination of the unstable,
uncooperative, and vulnerable Samosa (for which non-interventionalists should
not praise him). But if you are implying that we were friendly but the
Sandinistas bit the hand ..., it would be better to note that the Reagan
administration has a significantly different attitude towards the Nicaraguans
and toward Godless (but Catholic?) Communists in general.
Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp
--------jj@rabbit.UUCP (08/24/83)
Jim Balter's definition of an idiot: "Someone who doesn't agree with everything he <Mr. Balter> says." Perhaps you think I am an idiot. Perhaps you think that this is the right newsgroup for personal attacks directed at people who make arguments you find uncomfortable. Perhaps you never heard of net.flame? Come to net.flame and join all of us other "idiots". Leave this newsgroup for some genuine political discussion. <In that, I have to agree with you. Please take your own advice.>
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/31/83)
Dave Holt responds to ism780!jim's question about why the USSR is the
bad guys by listing all of the disadvantages to living in the USSR. He
then says that "the USSR is not a great place to live. It is not even
an ok place to live"
I think this missed the point entirely. There are many countries in
the world that I would not consider OK places to live. The rights
restrictions in the USSR are not much worse than those in many other
countries that we consider our allies. Consider please the history of
the Soviet Union. When the Communists took over in 1917, Russia was the
most backward country in Europe. Its economy was mostly agrarian.
There was tremendous illiteracy, and a long tradition of despotic
rulers.
Since then, the USSR has made tremendous gains in modernization.
Granted that their military is the most modern of their industries, at
the expense of others, yet they are still comparitively much better off
than under the previous rule of the Romanovs. Unfortunately, they have
yet to modernize their political system.
If our complaint against the Soviet Union were truly human rights, we
would not be supporting ANY dictators in the world, and that is
certainly not the case. I think that the U.S. govt. uses the "soviet
threat" as a tool for mobilization. What ever happened to the "Chinese
Threat?"
Consider this: Where would you rather live: { The South Bronx, Roxbury,
or Watts}, or {Moscow, Leningrad, or Kiev?}
Or better yet, other than maybe the 10% of people who consider
themselves intellectuals, how many people in this country really
exercise their rights to free speech, protest etc.
How many would be able to defend such rights on a philisophic basis?
I'm sure we've all heard about opinion polls going against the BILL of
rights every time.
My point is this: Intellectuals dislike the USSR because it is a
terrible place to be an intellectual. But is it a terrible place to be
an average non-intellectual? Sure there are shortages and corruption.
But what are we condemning, their political system, or their poverty.
--
Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry (until Sept. 8)
(ARPA) lkk@mit-mc (after sept. 1)holt@parsec.UUCP (09/02/83)
#R:parsec:40500003:parsec:40500004:000:1891
parsec!holt Sep 1 16:50:00 1983
I may not have done a very good job of explaining myself in the article,
so I will try again.
The USSR is not a good place to live. There are many other countries
in the world that are not good places to live. Most of these other countries
not trying to export their version of unpleasent life to their neighboring
countries and other countries around the world. The USSR is. If you don't
understand by now that the Russian revolution replaced one ruling class
with another more ruthless ruling class, then you should go live in
the USSR for a couple of months. It would become extremely clear to you.
The reason that the USSR spends so much of its GNP on the military is
twofold. One, they are a very paranoid people. They have paid a very high
price in human life in both of the World Wars. The people there understand
this, and this is how the government sells the necessity of buying massive
quantities of arms. Two, the ruling class in the USSR wants to expand its
influence, and thus its power to encompass the world. I can sympathise
with the first reason, it's the second one that scares me and causes me to
support our active resistance to Soviet expansionism.
By the way, as I write this, a large furror has been created by the
downing of a Korean 747 commercial airliner over a Soviet claimed island just
to the north of Japan. This was not an act of a "nice guy". United States
intelligence has manuscripts in Russian of the pilots conversations with
their ground control. Everyone was fully aware that the plane was a
commercial flight, and that they were shooting it down. No radio contact
was made to warn it to alter its course, etc. This kind of action can only
highten tensions in an already tense world. Isn't the question of who is
the "bad guy" kind of silly in light of this action?
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holtnotes@ucbcad.UUCP (09/05/83)
#R:ism780:-2200:ucbesvax:7500033:000:430
ucbesvax!turner Sep 4 03:31:00 1983
Jim: I stand with jj on name-calling. It's not worth it (as I
have discovered, by indulging in it.) It dilutes your points,
which I happen to think are largely valid.
Also: when quoting someone whose spelling is a trifle off, simply
spell it the *right* way, without comment. "[sic]" is sick. It's
easy to peck people half to death, while (again) detracting from
your own points.
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (09/07/83)
So what the f*ck would you have done? Bombed the Soviets into the stone
age to make them less barbaric? Or spent 10 times as much of our GNP on
building bombs? If we had a billion more nuclear weapons than we do now,
would the Soviets be any less barbaric? You cannot "dominate (contain)"
the Soviet Union in a nuclear world because you cannot use nuclear weapons
to advantage. Truman forced the Soviets to back down in Europe
and Kennedy forced them to back down in Cuba, Eisenhower forced the Chinese
to back down in Korea, and Nixon planned to force the North Vietnamese to
capitulate, all by threatening to drop nuclear weapons. They couldn't
call our bluff because we weren't bluffing. You cannot make an effective
nuclear threat unless you are really truly prepared to use them. Under such
circumstances it was inevitable that the Soviets would seek to achieve
MAD capability; the Cuba missile crisis led to the removal of Khrushchev
and the subsequent massive buildup of their nuclear arsenal.
Now nuclear threats are suicidal, yet we have converted our front defensive
line in Europe away from convential weapons over to nuclear.
Personally, I think the only long-term way to survive with the Soviets is to
*assimilate* them. Instead of barring travel between the two countries,
as the current administration is doing, we should be opening it up as much
as possible. Provide the American people with as much information about
Russian culture as possible (we won't turn Commie any more than school
children are turned gay), flood the Soviet mailboxes with pen-pal letters,
send more 11-year olds to Moscow, pretend we're friends, as we did with
China. Start more joint scientific, exploratory, deep sea, etc. ventures;
let them buy their pipeline parts from us; get them beholden to us.
And support popular revolution instead of forcing them all into the
Soviet camp; we will never strip them of third world political support
with our current foreign policy. And enter into serious arms negotiations,
with a willingness to give up something ("But we're Amuricuns! Only sissies
give up anything!" Right guys; let's keep that mature rational attitude
alive). If you think the Soviets get trigger-happy with air-to-airs
when planes fly over their security installations, just wait and see
what they might do with ICBM's when we put nukes 6 minutes from Moscow.
The point is, the U.S.S.R is not going away; we won't starve them to death
and we won't conquer them. So all this hawkish posturing and finger-pointing
is childish and to no avail. You can shout that the Russians are bad guys
until you are blue in the face, but it won't make them any nicer, it won't
make us an more secure, and it won't build a safe world for your children.
It blinds you to the flaws in yourself and your own country, which should be
dealt with concurrently with developing a deeper understanding of the rest
of the people in the world in order to help you save your own ass.
Please avoid non-constructive drivel and ad hominem trash in your responses.
Sincerely,
Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp
--------sizma@watarts.UUCP (09/08/83)
There are a couple of simple remarks to be made about the debate on Nicaragua. I was there in June for two weeks, and I saw and met several Americans, some of whom were actually working in the country. Although Nicaraguans clearly made a distinction between we Canadians and other visitors who were American, it seemed to be a distinction of little significance: they knew our country was somewhat different and they were curious in that respect, and they also realized that our government was less hostile to them. This latter factor was something to their advantage, of course: it meant that we might perhaps intervene internationally on their behalf with a different kind of pressure than American citizens. But Nicaraguans, like many other people who been involved in political struggles for generations, have little in the way of delusions about the relationship between citizens of a country and their "elected representatives". Because of this they were always very clear to us that when they referred to the U.S. government they were not referring to the American people. Of course, in any country that is so besieged by an external force, there are going to be people who express hostility indiscriminately to any element of that external force. Yet as we wandered around various parts of the country, most of us looking quite like North American tourists, we encountered virtually no hostility (apart from the odd remark, mostly directed at the women in a typically -- yet still inexcusable -- machismo way) and an unexpected amount of friendliness. The Nicaraguans continually indicated that they have nothing to gain from being hostile to the U.S. The U.S., after all, holds the global purse-strings. The Nicaraguans have a foreign debt of $3.65 billion which they intend to pay off, and they are successfully meeting the payments, unlike many other underdeveloped countries. Personally, I think that they ought to forget about a lot of that debt because it arose due to the money that Somoza borrowed from foreign sources so that he could go on killing people. Money is not neutral; the sources of that money were certainly aware of what the money was used for -- as any successful lending institution knows precisely the conditions of a country it is dealing with -- and, as far as I'm concerned, it's their tough luck that their side lost out. However, the Sandinistas have their reasons for paying off the debt, and it's up to Nicaragua to decide. But money isn't the only factor, of course. The Nicaraguans continually claimed that they want to run their own show (and we heard this not just from the leaders but virtually everyone else we ran into as well), and having an unfriendly American administration hovering over you all the time makes dealing with internal problems all the more difficult. They want "normal" relations with other countries because they want to learn from them; they don't want to get stuck with just one model, and as Reagan attempts to cut off the rest of the western world from them, that's exactly what they end up with. --Steve Izma, University of Waterloo
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (09/15/83)
I had the experience of hearing that Sandinista Hymn (not Nicaraguan National
Anthem) several times in various cities in Nicaragua at the climax of the 1980
literacy campaign. "We're struggling against the yankee -- enemy of humanity."
Once there were more than 500 000 poeple singing with gusto.
The interesting part is: every time I heard or saw that saying, some
Nicaraguan told me "No es la gente!" -- "It isn't the people!"
In the few weeks I was there I heard many accounts of horrors from Somoza
many of them involving torture or mutilation. Everybody considered him
a "yankee" puppet. I heard numerous denunciations of my government, but
NOBODY took it out on me as an American.
Another american asked a local why they were so friendly to people
whose country was so apparently hostile to them. The reply was something to
the effect of "For many years we had a government that didn't represent us.
We know what it is like".
My point is: the Nicaraguan people --near as I could see -- were
NOT anti-american. Not against our people. They seemed to feel that if our
people understood what our government was doing, Nicaragua would be in less
danger from the "yankee"
: wqjim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (09/21/83)
I agree with Steve Silberberg that the Israeli people are not "common scum", and that the terms "Israelis" and "Jews" and "PLO" and "Palestinians" are not interchangeable. I would add that "Israelis" and "the Israeli government" are also not interchangeable (which leaves the possibility that certain members of the Israeli government are common scum, although I consider such a label to be simplistic). On September 25, 1982, while Begin was still fighting hard to prevent a full-fledged inquiry, and he had just proposed a weak one-man inquiry by Itzhak Kahan, president of Israel's Supreme Court, 250,000 to 400,000 people, at least 1 out of every 10 Israeli adults, rallied in Tel Aviv to protest Israel's complicity in the Beirut massacre and to demand a full investigation. According to a poll the following day in Yedoit Aharonot, 51% of all Israelis favored such a probe. When the Commission of Inquiry came in with its findings and recommendations, it found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacre, and it recommended that he step down and be denied any other position of power. By precedent there was strong case for the whole government to resign; in April 1974, a similar commission appointed to investigate why Israel was unprepared for the October 1973 war found military commanders, but not Cabinet members, personally responsible. Yet then opposition leader Menachem Begin demanded the resignation of Premier Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan because, he claimed, they were ultimately responsible. After a short period, they were forced by public pressure to step down in favor of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. The Commission's most well-documented point was that Israel's leaders should have known that the Phalangists, if allowed into the refugee camps, were likely to massacre Palestinian civilians if they weren't strictly supervised, in light of their record of random killings and their undisguised hatred of the Palestinians. The Phalangists were not only allowed into the camps, but they were sent by Israel on September 16; pre-war briefings by Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan indicated that Israel would invade from the south and the Christian "Lebanese Forces" from the north. They would cut the Beirut-Damascus highway and "meet in West Beirut". When interviewed on Israeli television, Ariel Sharon had admitted that the professed purpose of the entry of the Iraeli Defense Forces into West Beirut-- to "maintain order" after the assasination of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel--was "camouflage" for the true purpose: a search-and-destroy mission against remnants of the PLO forces left in the city's Palestinian quarters. This is even more significant in light a tactic used throughout the war: heavy bombardment and shelling of other refugee camps and West Beirut. This caused many times more civilian deaths than the Phalangist massacre did. The justifications given in both cases were similar: the PLO was said to be "hiding behind civilians" in Sabra and Shatila as well. That is what all the Israeli army officers standing nearby during the massacre claimed to have thought all the shooting was about. I find Steve's comments about Israel having to attack to prevent the massacre (and his placing of that word in quotes), and being in a no win situation, incomprehensible. There are far more Jews in Israel who are critical of the the Israeli government than there are in the U.S. If there is ever going to be peace in the area, people all over the world will have to reject such simplistic notions as that all Jews or Israelis or Palestinians or PLO are scum, and such ahistorical ideas as that Israel is trying to take over the Middle East or that Begin and Sharon were always on the side of right or that the Israelis are just like the Nazis or that the Arabs were the sole instigators of the 1948 war (read your history! The U.N. Security Council had failed to endorse the partition resolution, the U.S. had withdrawn its support for it, and a plan for trusteeship was being discussed in the General Assembly when the Zionists proclaimed the State of Israel on May 14 and Truman recognized it a few hours later; this was shortly after the massacre by Palestinian Jews of the entire population of the Arab village of Deir Yasin), or whatever ravings are popular at the moment. Pride in nation, race, religion, or whatever usually leads to blindness. Think rationally, be empathic with your antagonists, and eschew dogma. As a Jew, how often do you find yourself taking the Arabs' side (what, those scum!)? As an Arab, how often do you find yourself taking the Israeli side (what, those scum!)? Why not? How often do you examine why you are so consistent, why you are such a strong defender of "your side"? Unless more Jews are able to talk like Arabs, more Russians like Americans, more British like Irish, our stupid antagonisms are going to destroy us all. Ready for an onslaught of dogma, Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim) --------
courtney@hp-pcd.UUCP (09/22/83)
#R:parsec:40500003:hp-pcd:17400030:000:269
hp-pcd!courtney Sep 20 12:03:00 1983
The response by "jbd" makes me think:
Wouldn't it be nice if US citizens would give the same respect to the
PEOPLE of the Soviet Union as the Nicaraguans give to us. The Soviet
government is HARDLY representative of the people of the country...
Courtney Loomisdje@5941ux.UUCP (09/22/83)
This is in response to ima!jim's recent article. He said he was "ready for
an onslaught of dogma." Well, although I don't agree with everything he wrote,
I'll confine my remarks to reason.
To all readers, both partisan and evenhanded: place yourself for a moment
in the position of an Israeli government leader. I don't have to give a long
history lesson here; most of you are well acquainted with the situation.
What do YOU think is the most constructive approach to take towards the
international situation in the Mideast? Unilaterally withdraw from all the
land gained since 1967? Invite Arafat to a Geneva meeting? Bomb Damascus?
Put Sharon on trial? What kind of POSITIVE steps would you recommend?
Do you think they would have a reasonable chance of success (i.e. peace)?
My point is that the problems here are very serious and I don't see any easy
solutions. There are lots of creative thinkers here on the net. Who knows,
maybe we can come up with some interesting answers. Let's relegate the poison
pens to net.flame and see how constructive we can be here. How about it,
fellow readers?
Dave Ellis / Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ
...!{hocda,ihnp4}!houxm!houxf!5941ux!dje
...!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!houxf!5941ux!djemarty@hou2b.UUCP (11/22/83)
The discussion of nuclear disarmament seems to have missed the possibility that it might really be the US that is stalling the negotiations. After all, the USSR has a larger army than the US. Therefore we can't meet and beat them on the field. Instead (soon after WW-II, when no one else had nuclear weapons), the US adopted the doctrine of "massive retaliation" (the threat that aggression by any means would be met with everything we had, meaning a nuclear strike). When the USSR made a showcase pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons, the US did not follow suit, because that would have contradicted "massive retaliation." In fact, if all nuclear arms were multilateraly destroyed, we would be helpless against the military might of the USSR. That's why the US does not seriously negotiate for nuclear disarmament, and won't until and unless we build an effective army. M. B. Brilliant Bell Labs, Holmdel
norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (11/23/83)
Brilliant says: "In fact, if all nuclear arms were multilateraly destroyed,
we would be helpless against the military might of the USSR."
I strongly suspect that this view is grossly in error. There has been a
lot of recently published evidence that the Soviets are not so mighty
after all. They don't seem to be doing any better in Afghanistan than we
did in Vietnam. Their armed forces are riddled with corruption and decay.
The average soldier is quite cynical. Heroism is not to be expected.
The american citizens can be expected to be even more intractable an enemy
than Afghanis or Vietnamese. The logistics of Soviet INVASION of the US
are such that the event is extremely unlikely without the support of nuclear
weaponry.
Brilliants claims of Soviet invincibility and American helplessness are
incredible.
--Norm Andrews, AT+T IS, Holmdel, N.J. ariel!normjohn@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (10/25/85)
In article <162@ecrcvax.UUCP> pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) writes: >I fear we seem to be helpless at stoping this system from devoring us. >President Regean said he was against stoping the red ink if it cut's into >the Star Wars project. What's the sense in this madness? +++FLAME ON+++ What is this junk doing in net.ham-radio? It ought to be posted to net.politics or net.jokes only. Ham radio is internationally NON-POLITICAL! +++FLAME OFF+++ -- John Moore (NJ7E/XE1HDO) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john {hao!noao|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!terak!anasazi!john (602) 952-8205 (day or evening) 5302 E. Lafayette Blvd, Phoenix, Az, 85018 (home address)