anon@utcsrgv.UUCP (anon) (10/31/83)
I am glad to see the strongly negative reaction to the Grenadan invasion on the net. The invasion itself was very disturbing in global terms (at the least, and putting it very politely, "it sets a precedent for invasion by nations whose motives might not be so noble", as the acting Cdn sec'y for external affairs put it) but the ABC News polls that have come out showing 60-80% US domestic support for it are even more disturbing. As far as I know, *NO* other NATO country supports the move, Mexico doesn't, and I haven't heard of any S./C. American country that does. Unless the polls are way off, the American public is disturbingly out of tune with the rest of the world on this. At least net response (so far) doesn't agree with the polls. As for the reasons, it is indeed clear that only an excuse was needed to launch the invasion, and Bishop's death was a convenient one. It wouldn't be too surprising to find a lot of intrigue (even CIA intrigue) behind the coup (sounds like a plot from Mission Impossible), but I will grant that there are reports that Bishop's independent line made the Cubans impatient. Further, the spectre of the Iranian hostages (and what they did to the Carter presidency) must have loomed over Reagan. But it's a prime example of shoot-from-the-hip foreign policy that he did not send in high-powered negotiators to ensure the safe evacuation (or continued presence on the island) of the students, perhaps with forces offshore. (The Canadian student that came out Thursday said there'd been no trouble at all before the invasion-- the shooting only started once the US arrived.) No, in with the guns, maim, wound, *kill*. A "war we can win"... The U.S. vs. Grenada. Hmm; pretty even contest, eh? As for protecting one's national interests, that is a fine motive, but one is supposed to act (a) rationally and (b) legally to further one's aims. Violating a nation's sovereignty is not legal (and why Reagan thinks that the request of 6 area nations makes it legitimate is beyond me) and the int'l political fallout probably makes it irrational. As to the precedent, would you have the USSR go into W. Germany to dismantle the Pershing and cruise missiles, in their national interest? The US was worried about Grenadan stationing of Russian bombers... does that compare to Pershings 6 minutes away from Moscow? (I'm *not* making a point about the INF; just about the Grenadan precedent) Sadly, if the US admin. had not been so *Irrational* about socialist governments when Bishop approached them for aid, they would have said "this place is somewhat strategic and it would pay to help them out, particularly since the government has popular support, has an independent line, and seems willing to work with us" "With US support, they can build up their economy and proceed to elections soon". It probably would have cost less in dollars than the current military operation, and it *would* have cost less in lives. It is interesting to note that much the same thing happened in Vietnam; after WW2, relations with Ho-Chi Minh were good and could have been improved, but short-sightedness had the US re-install France as a colonial power, leading to years of French and US deaths (let's not call them "casualties"-- it is too mild a term). I hope the new administration is neither too late nor lacking the political will to stop the same paranoid policy with respect to Nicaragua. As for "creating democracy at the point of a bayonet" (as Sen. Moynihan put it), have there been *any* examples of US "operations", covert or overt, resulting in anything but an unpopular, repressive, dictatorship? Finally, the Reagan-is-warlike-and-is-going-to-kill-our-sons component of the gender gap must be a mile wide by now. Unless his appeal to patriotism outweighs more humane instincts, he will surely be defeated. (I have posted this from a relatively anonymous account, as since this data is transmitted over the US border, it is subject to Nat'l Security Agency scrutiny, and as I might want to work in/visit the US in the future, I don't wish to be put on a list of "undesirables". Citizens have redress against such things, but aliens don't. Sadly, this makes replying by mail difficult; please reply to the net. Perhaps this is too paranoid, perhaps not. US courts have explicitly allowed this trans-border monitoring (and most net.xxx groups cross many borders) so this material is fair game for the NSA, even if originated by a US citizen).
tpkq@charm.UUCP (11/01/83)
For those network readers interested in an alternative view of "our" government's invasion of Grenada, here is an excerpt from an editorial in an American socialist newspaper: "In the first such airborne invasion since Vietnam, nearly 2,000 U.S. Marines and Army Rangers stormed the tiny island of Grenada October 25. This naked and unprovoked aggression reveals the hatred of the U.S. ruling class for the example Grenada set in 1979, when it became the first Black country in the world to carry out a socialist revolution. "As news of the criminal invasion spread, an outcry was heard around the world. Millions saw it as an ominous prelude to new U.S. military intervention against Nicaragua, the Salvadoran liberation fighters, and others struggling for freedom in the region. "The invasion of Grenada was preceded by the tragic developments that led to the assassination of Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and many other top government leaders. These events have been deeply felt by workers in the United States, especially Blacks. The Grenadian people, like their sisters and brothers in Cuba and Nicaragua, demonstrated that it is possible even for a tiny, oppressed nation to throw off the racist, imperialist boot of Washington, to take power from the hands of the capitalists and landlords, and to establish a government that fights for the interests of working people. "In 1979, the Grenadians overthrew Eric Gairy, a U.S.-backed tyrant, and replaced him with a government of workers and farmers, led by the New Jewel Movement. That government, headed by Bishop, mobilized the toiling masses for four and a half years to overcome the legacy of poverty, hunger, and illiteracy left by centuries of colonial and capitalist rule. "In the short time since 1979, the Grenadian government slashed unemployment from 49 percent to less than 14 percent. Thousands of acres of idle land were made available to small farmers. "Women were given equal rights, and a vast program of health care, nutrition, adult education, and literacy classes was organized to transform the lives of the Grenadian people. Democratic councils were established all over the island. "It was the refusal of the New Jewel leadership and Grenadian people to retreat from their course that earned them the fear and hatred of U.S. imperialism -- and the profound admiration of workers all over the world. . ." -- from The Militant, a U.S. socialist newsweekly
walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (11/01/83)
Re: Why did the USA rebuff Maurice Bishop? I don't know; why did the USA rebuff any of the leaders of countries that asked for our support in the past? Castro, who then turned to the USSR (and look what a close neighbor we lost). Ho Chi Minh (sp?), who then turned to the USSR (and if not, Viet Nam would just be the name of some country we'd never heard of). King Saud, who then turned away (and look at the possible oil deal we lost THAT time!!) The list goes on and on. Third world, poor countries don't give a DAMN about communism vs. capitalism vs. whatever, they just want to SURVIVE!! Unless the US learns to cultivate better relations, we'll continue to lose potential allies.
ofut@gatech.UUCP (11/01/83)
I'd just like to play a little game. I think us computer types are pretty
good at playing games. Let's use our imagination.
I live in a well known southern city in a rather rural state. Although our
governor has rather strange views of education, he doesn't seem to be a
communist sympathizer in any way. But for fun, let's suppose he is. Also,
we'll assume that he's tremendously popular with us georgians. Not that
we lean communist you understand, but he's a good guy and keeps food on our
table.
Now come the wierdos! A bunch of nice friendly cuban construction workers
with popguns on the end of their shovels are building a little airport.
The popguns are for weekend parties because we don't allow fireworks.
(Hartsfield - we're very high up in the air here, 1057', so it's a bit
larger than normal.) Then these crazy soldiers from fort benning come
racing up I-75, kill our great governor, take over our gold capitol and
impose a strict martial law over all of atlanta!! Us poor students from
up north are a little worried but we're ok. The citizens of georgia are
very worried!
The question is: should the US (who has a teeny army of only 600 soldiers)
ask the great carribean republic with their crack marines to come help us
out or should we solve our own problems here in georgia?
Remember, gone are the days of our revolution where we bravely hid behind
trees whilst the british marched in open fields waiting for us to come out.
--
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet: Ofut @ GATech ARPA: Ofut.GATech @ Csnet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!ofutjj@rabbit.UUCP (11/01/83)
Please explain: Why do we care (and why should we care) what a socialist newspaper prints? After all, a socialist newspaper is at least as false, misleading, and deliberately manipulative as any John Birch newsletter. Please spare me the effort of stepping past articles quoted from either socialists or birchers (or communists, or moral minorityites, or....). I have no doubt that a group whose self interest (and finances) hinge on the USSR will support violence, slavery, and murder in the name of "the revolution", and decry anything that forstalls their quest for power and greed. I have no doubt that conservative organizations that depend on fear, racism, and hate will also slant their views in the "appropriate" direction. I'm sure that these copyright violations aren't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They are, however, filling up the net with worthless trash. Skip it. -- o O from the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
mwe@astrovax.UUCP (11/02/83)
The USA gave the cold shoulder to Bishop because we didn't like his politics. The "powers that be" are much more interested in exploitable markets/resources than in democracy, so a democratic but leftist government does them no good. I support the invasion of Grenada (tentatively) on the facts now available about the military situation, but I deplore the policy of forcing any leftist government into the Cuban/Soviet camp that brought the situation about in the first place. If WE had offered to build the airfield, instead of pretending Bishop wasn't a legitimate head of state, we would have saved alot of lives, and most probably alot of money too. (I haven't seen the pricetag for the operation yet) web ewell astrovax!mwe
gnu@sun.UUCP (John Gilmore) (11/02/83)
Q: What was the last Russian-invaded country to have free elections? A: Q: What was the last US-invaded country to have free elections? A: "West" Germany, as far as I know. All our "anti-communist" invasions since then have somehow not ended up making democratic countries. If anyone knows of a counter-example, please post. Hmm. There are a FEW countries which have moved from fascist or totalitarian rule to democracy -- Spain for one -- but without US help. Perhaps living in a democracy is not good training for creating one from scratch; maybe we should let somebody else try for awhile.
tpkq@charm.UUCP (11/02/83)
~
The next time you support an invasion, rabbit!jj, it would be nice,
just as courtesy to the people being killed, if you first learned how
to spell the name of their country.
So you can get it right next time, try typing these words on your
already well-singed keyboard:
N I C A R A G U A
E L S A L V A D O R
(and here's an easy one)
C U B Ajj@rabbit.UUCP (11/02/83)
Hey! Mr (ms?) charm!tpkq... Do you know something we don't? Are we REALLY going to attack Cuba? That's what you said, after all. Frankly, I think the reason you are whining about my spelling is that you can't refute my arguments. Diversion is often used by those who can't argue with relevant facts. Enjoy (and see if you can find the spelling mistakes I left in this article for you to whine about.) Have an overly picky day. <I'm sure you'll manage.> -- o O from the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
sample@ubc-visi (11/02/83)
rabbit!jj: I'm sure that these copyright violations aren't telling anyone anything they didn't already know. They are, however, filling up the net with worthless trash. Skip it. I, for one, found the article interesting and informative. A public statement of this form is not meaningless, as the Cuban government would lose face if it did not act in accordance with what it said. If the Cubans had supported the coup, they would probably have said nothing. Being smarter than the American government, they know that murder will out.
jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (11/03/83)
From the Boston Globe (11/2/83): Builder Denies Airport for Military Reuter London - A British company heading the construction team for Grenada's new airport dismissed US claims yesterday that the site was being developed for military purposes by Cuba and the Soviet Union. Plessy Airports, whose $9.9 million contract is underwritten by the British Government, listed 11 facilities needed at a military airbase, and said none of them was being installed at the airport at Point Salines. ... A Plessy spokesman, Tony Devereux, said in an interview that the airport conformed to international civil avaition and was designed to facilitate tourism for Grenada. "There's not the least doubt that, if the British Government had been unhappy about the nature of the contract, it would not have allowed the Export Credits Guarantee Department to underwrite it", he said. (end) But the right says: "what about the 1500 Cuban soldiers?" The facts respond: "you mean the 784 mostly combat engineers?" The right says: "but what about all the weapons?" History responds: "looks like they needed more" The right counters: "but what about the airport?..." The right concludes: "Taken individually, Reagan's fact are a pack of lies. But you have to put them together to see the BIG picture. And besides, the truth is a Soviet plot." Does anyone know if we are officially war criminals yet? Our Security Counsel Veto stopped a condemnation there. Anyone know if the General Assembly or the OAS have voted? --Jim Bray UUCP decvax!bbncca!jbray ARPA jbray@bbncca
ricks@tekcad.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:charm:-15100:tekcad:20100009:000:575
tekcad!franka Nov 2 09:39:00 1983
Please explain:
Why do we care (and why should we care) what a rabbit!jj
says? After all, jj's words are at least as
false, misleading, and deliberately manipulative as any
John Birch newsletter.
I'm sure that these stupid remarks aren't telling anyone
anything they didn't already know. They are, however, filling
up the net with worthless trash. Skip it.
From the truly menacing,
/- -\ but usually underestimated,
<-> Frank Adrian
(tektronix!tekcad!franka)
P.S. jj, censor not, lest ye be censored.ofut@gatech.UUCP (11/03/83)
Let's keep personal childish attacks in the mail.
--
Jeff Offutt
School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA
CSNet: Ofut @ GATech ARPA: Ofut.GATech @ Csnet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ut-ngp,ut-sally}!gatech!ofuttpkq@charm.UUCP (11/03/83)
rabbit!jj:
I pointed out your misspelling of Grenada not to split hairs,
but because it typifies the way that you (and others) jump in and make
pronouncements about a country, even to the point of supporting an
invasion of it, without knowing (quite literally) the first thing
about the country.
You ask why anyone would want to read a socialist newspaper.
Well, If you had been reading the Militant, you would not just have
learned how to spell Grenada. The Militant has been closely following
events in Grenada ever since the 1979 revolution. You would have
learned about the centuries of British and American imperial
domination of the island, and the legacy of poverty, disease,
illiteracy, and unemployment which it left. You would also have read
about the enormous advances in education, health care, and the economy
which had been made since the revolution. And you would have heard
about the U.S. military threats and provocations which led up to the
invasion.
Before you post slanderous, red-baiting smears about a
newspaper ("socialist" == "financed by the USSR" ??? Honestly! Senator
McCarthy would be proud of you!! ), maybe you should check it out.
Introductory subscriptions (12 weeks for $3.00) are available by
sending to:
The Militant
14 Charles Lane
New York, NY
10014thor@ihuxw.UUCP (11/03/83)
Regarding the question of American actions covert or otherwise have ever resulted in something other than a repressive dictatorship, I believe South Korea may be an example to the contrary. US and UN intervention via the Korean War appear to have preserved a democratic government there. I am not an expert on internal South Korean politics, however AND make no claim to be. It just happens to come to mind since I know the South Koreans are generally strongly anti-communist. Anyone else have better data? Mark Kohls ihuxw!thor
dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (11/04/83)
Just saw ABC's Night Line where they were interviewing wounded Cubans back
in Havana.Did these guys look like soldiers? I didn't think so,50% shown on
the interview were aged 40-45 plus and in pretty poor physical shape(I know
they've been through the mill the last week or so)to be considered combat
troops.
On the other hand if the roles were reversed what would be the make up of
U.S. troops/builders i.e the C.B.'s.Are these guys less rugged looking,more
technical types of soldiers who would still be able to give a reasonably
good account of themselves in a fire-fight.
CURIOUSER and CURIOUSER
Dave Peaktpkq@charm.UUCP (11/04/83)
~ The UN General Assembly voted 108 to 9 to condemn the invasion of Grenada. The only governments which supported the invasion, except for those which took part in it, were Israel and El Salvador.
jj@rabbit.UUCP (11/04/83)
I've mailed a personal reply to charm!tpkq. I don't want to contribute to the emotional claptrap on the net. The references to McCarthyism show little but a good understanding of the emotional "guilt by association" tactic so well used by the paranoid Senator. They also show a willingness to use the same tactics. The references about "The Militant" show little besides understanding of the same method of news-slanting that the newspaper uses. Enought said. Enough emotional claptrap. Enough of this entire issue. There hasn't been a new "fact" introduced in a week. -- o O from the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/06/83)
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Grenada action is the
disparity in perception between the people in the USA and the people
in other friendly countries. In the USA, polls seem to show that the
majority of the people support the invasion. In no other country is
this true.
The disparity is disturbing because it suggests that one or more of
several things is happening:
(1) News manipulation in the USA or in ALL other "free" countries.
(2) A general feeling that the USA is exhibiting colonialist
behaviour, coupled with a feeling in the US that this is as it should
be, but elsewhere with a feeling that "we might be next". (I have seen
this concern expressed in several letters to the editor in Toronto papers).
(3) A general feeling that the US and USSR have the attitude
that the world is divided into "our bits" and "their bits", with no
room for friends and partners. Those that might want to be friends to
the US don't necessarily want to be one of the "US bits".
(4) A worry about the increasing use of naked agression by both
US and USSR, a worry that is downplayed by the US media in the name
of patriotism (if they are nasty, so must we be, but we are only
because they are; we are really very nice guys). From outside, the
difference is harder to see, since our patriotism is to our own
countries and to the idea of freedom of choice.
When I first heard of the Grenada invasion, I thought that for almost
the first time, Reagan had done something right. I envisaged a UN police
action against a bloody coup. But then some of the "reasons"
started to come out, all of them outrageous. Worse, the people that
opposed the invasion (in the US) had all the wrong reasons for opposing
it (it would have been OK to invade if danger to US citizens had been
proven, for example).
I suspect that the difference between the US and non-US perceptions of
the event come mainly from a persistent difference in the media, which
have a positive feedback relationship with the consumers of information.
A newspaper that tells its readers what they want to hear will make
more sales than one that tells the truth. The truthful paper will be
called a liar by people who wish to believe differently. What do you
think would be the fate of a newspaper that consistently pointed out
wrongdoing in international affairs, without fear or favour to any country?
I suspect they would be known as "pinko, Jew-hating, anti-Arab, etc. etc."
and would sell very few papers. If the paper were published in USSR,
it would be quickly suppressed and the editors sent to psychiatric
institutions or labour camps. Why should this be? Everyone believes
that their own country is, at bottom, best; but surely it is unreasonable
to expect that it should be perfect? Nevertheless, there seems to
be something in human nature that hates to admit imperfection.
In the US, I perceive a tendency toward extremism, such that the
behaviour of the Government is either marvellous or intolerable
(if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out).
Sorry for the length of this, but I find the discrepancy between the
US and the rest of the free world one of the more disturbing trends
of these perilous times.
Martin Tayloresj@ihuxl.UUCP (11/07/83)
A moot point, but ... The UN did NOT vote to "condemn" as Mr. Kerwin says. The langauge used was "strongly deplore" which the authors figured would get more votes. ref: "Chicago Tribune" for about a week and a half ago. ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/07/83)
=================== Regarding the question of American actions covert or otherwise have ever resulted in something other than a repressive dictatorship, I believe South Korea may be an example to the contrary. US and UN intervention via the Korean War appear to have preserved a democratic government there. I am not an expert on internal South Korean politics, however AND make no claim to be. It just happens to come to mind since I know the South Koreans are generally strongly anti-communist. Anyone else have better data? =================== S. Korea has had a repressive dictatorship ever since the Korean War (and to some extent before it). Many S. Korean intellectuals welcomed the original N.Korean invasion as being a liberation from the dictatorship of Rhee, before they discovered their mistake. They did not welcome the second invasion (the Chinese one). After the war, a military dictatorship was established. A couple of years ago the dictator Park was assassinated in a manner not unlike the Grenada murders. I don't think you can use S. Korea as a counter-example to the generalization that US intervention leaves behind totalitarian states. I don't think the S.Korean dictatorship is as repressive as a lot of them. Opposition parties are tolerated to some extent, provided they don't get too noisy and are not too obviously popular. On the other side of the equation are murders of students and others supposed to be opposed to the government, and the kidnapping of S.Koreans living outside the country. Martin Taylor (PS My wife is from S. Korea)
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (11/08/83)
>Well, If you had been reading the Militant, you would not just have >learned how to spell Grenada. The Militant has been closely following >events in Grenada ever since the 1979 revolution. You would have >learned about the centuries of British and American imperial >domination of the island, and the legacy of poverty, disease, >illiteracy, and unemployment which it left. You would also have read >about the enormous advances in education, health care, and the economy >which had been made since the revolution. And you would have heard >about the U.S. military threats and provocations which led up to the >invasion. In order to use the word "learn" as I and, I think, most people use the word, the object--the thing you are "learning"--should have some resemblance to the truth or the facts or the way things are. You can be told a lie but I doubt that you can *learn* a lie. You can learn that certain people or publications (in this case) are liars--but I don't need to read the Militant to discover that. I don't care who it's financed by, it's the same old tired party line. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/08/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-259900:uokvax:5000013:000:1484
uokvax!rigney Nov 5 03:07:00 1983
I'm afraid (?) you're too fearful of the NSA. Since
I've been researching a paper on Our Friends at Fort Meade
this term for a graduate poli-sci seminar on the intelli-
gence community, this is something I'm keenly interested in.
While the NSA can (and therefore does) eavesdrop on all ca-
ble and satcom traffic across U.S. borders, the volume is
too high for them to do more than search for key phrases and
names - they certainly wouldn't take the time to have a hu-
man read net submissions to determine who's for and against
the Grenadan Invasion. It's just not worth their time, when
they can be reading Russian diplomatic telegrams and similar
goodies instead.
In fact, if you hadn't mentioned them by name there
would've been no keywords at all in your message and it
would've been ignored, but now they've seen it, traced it to
your machine, found the terminal you entered it on, and have
your fingerprints. And then slipped this message onto the
net to calm your fears, while they move in. It's too
late:-)
(In case anyone isn't sure, the first paragraph is serious,
the second not. And if anyone's interested in the NSA I
recommend THE PUZZLE PALACE by James Bamford, now out in pa-
perback.)
Not afraid to sign my name, such as it is
Carl
..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
..!duke!uok!uokvax!rigney
p.s. Actually I don't believe lines to Canada are
monitored, but the TATs and satcoms for transmissions
to Europe are.rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/08/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-259900:uokvax:5000015:000:1205
uokvax!rigney Nov 5 14:56:00 1983
In case it wasn't made clear, I'd like to point out
that the NSA would never break into UT to take fingerprints.
Black bag jobs were performed by the FBI at the NSA's request,
before Hoover "got religion" in his final years and stopped
the practice. Outside the U.S., I suppose the CIA would
perform the entry. Its main use was to obtain diplomatic
codes from an occassional embassy; this is known as "Practical
Cryptography."
Would the NSA instead crack utcsrgv's security, and then
by an extensive analysis of login records and patterns of usage
deduce who anon was? No, there's an easier way. As a matter
of fact, the NSA has methods that can determine the authorship
of an article by comparing word choice, grammar usage, letter
distributions and the like, with known samples. So if anon is
a frequent contributor under his/her own name, and the NSA wanted
to know that name, they do.
Does anyone out there find this as interesting as I do, or
am I just an atavistic freak? The Grenada discussion is grinding
down; maybe we need a new topic, so how about the NSA's role in a
networking society?
Cheerily yours,
Carl
..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
..!duke!uok!uokvax!rigneygrunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:charm:-15100:uiuccsb:11000044:000:1362 uiuccsb!grunwald Nov 8 17:30:00 1983 I take exception to the comments made by rabbit!jj about socialist news- papers and the truthgulness of information in those papers. He seems to advocate a position that only one view is correct and worth listening two. Unfortunetly, this is all too clear from his other net articles. While I am not familiar with "The Militant," I am familiar with "In These Times," a magizine published by independent socialists. Far from being "in the pay of the Soviets," this magizine consistently decries actions taken by any power in the world which attempts to remove the freedoms of others. Additionally, it covers labour-related, farm-related and union-related issues much better than any other weekly that I have seen. This, combined with their interviews and foreign-reporting articles gives the reader information which traditional conservative newspapers ignore. They usually manage to do this without the rhetoric that so many papers get into. It gets many positive reviews, and they have had some very well written stories in it. I would suggest that rabbit!jj look at a couple of issues, if only to dispell his obviously slanted view of a socialist magizine, and perhaps of socialists in general. Keep those letters and cards coming... Dirk Grunwald University of Illinois USENET : ihnp4 ! uiucdcs ! grunwald CSNET : grunwald.uiuc@Rand-Relay
gmk@uicsg.UUCP (11/10/83)
#R:cwruecmp:-75900:uicsg:17600004:000:601 uicsg!gmk Nov 1 22:20:00 1983 There was an article on the pronunciation of "Grenada" in the Chicago Tribune Sunday. It seems that Columbus named the island Grenada (pronounced grah-NAH-dah ) and that pronunciation was in effect through the French colonial period. When the island came under British rule, the pronunciation was altered to Grah-NAY-dah. (The British can never pronounce foreign words-- the BBC calls the president of the Phillipines "Mr. Mar-cahs".) Since Grenada is an English speaking country today, the British pronunciation has stuck. Gary Koob University of Illinois ...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsg!gmk
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (11/11/83)
#R:charm:-15900:ucbesvax:7500049:000:1799 ucbesvax!turner Nov 4 18:16:00 1983 Somehow, you fail to point out the most obvious thing of all: the Militant is yet another left-sectarian vanguard party organ. You may take exception to the label "left-sectarian", but in defending yourself you would point to a number of other left-sectarian parties (each with its own pathetic little political organ), and make arcane ideological distinctions that fly far over the head of the average net.politics reader. Hey, I read these papers sometimes. Sure, they have some pretty good coverage of world events. But that's about all they're good for. The domestic coverage is usually hopelessly skewed toward magnifying the significance of the associated vanguard sect, far out of proportion to the events it is supposedly instigating or involved in. And the editorials are thickets of heavily ideological rhetoric, shrill and often obscure. To those of you out there who want a leftish perspective on world events, you need not stoop to buying the Militant. You can read Socialist Review - prissy, but well-written In These Times - rather self-important, but with good domestic coverage; newspaper format Inquiry - enjoyable libertarian rag Monthly Review - grossly doctrinaire at times; not strongly recommended Dissent - top-notch; good at sniffing out its own articles of creeping faith Working Papers - long background articles, but palatably written; all domestic coverage There is, sadly, no anarchist publication that lives longer than about three months. Otherwise I would find one to recommend. (And have some- thing to read that I slavishly agreed with on every point. I guess that's just what comes of being more left and sectarian than anybody else.) So enjoy. Or don't. But read. --- Michael Turner
cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (Carl W. Amport) (11/12/83)
Sorry Martin, I can't agree with you completely. I don't think the differences between US opinion on Grenada and the opinions of other free world nations on Grenada are based on misleading information. Whose opinion should the US be concerned with? The British, who rallied behind their own Falkland incident and naturally expected the US to be on 'their side', the West Germans, who expect the US to be their line of defense and pay for it, the good old Japanese, who admit they can't defend their own crucial shipping lanes and likewise have a 'MADE and PAID FOR IN USA' defense program, the French, who have their noses in almost as much of the world as the US does and also sell arms and nuclear technology to anyone for a price - including their allies' enimies? Other countries only support US actions when they are in THEIR interests. Don't kid yourself into thinking that other nations have more un-biased media coverage or more objective public opinion. I do, however, agree that other countries in the world must be sick of the bilateral power balance in the world. Everything is either US or USSR, with little room in between. That, I am afraid, is mostly the fault of the US. As I pointed out in an earlier article, after WWII, we disarmed Japan and W. Germany and took responsibility for protecting Europe and the rest of the free world. Now, we must try to act and counteract every little move the Soviets (or the countires aligned with them) make. If the balance of power was divided among more than 2 countries and 1 tended to be too aggressive, counteraction by different equals at different times would be more acceptable, and less dangerous, to the rest of the world. I also would like to add that although some people in the US have extreme views about the behavior of the US government, I feel the majority thinks that al- though their country is the best one in which to live, there is still much room for improvement. I would not exactly call this extremism. Carl W. Amport Naperville, IL.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (09/23/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: [ ..... ] I posted these questions a month or so ago and have gotten no replies, but I would really like to know: 1) Have all US combat troops returned from Grenada, if so when? 2) Have elections been held, if so when, and who won? 3) Is the airport open and what is its capacitiy? 4) Where would one find out about these things out? The new media really do seem to lose interest when the shooting stops. Any information greatly appreciated. Bob Weiler
riddle@im4u.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (09/26/85)
This is half-rememembered and could be wrong in some or all details, but here's what I seem to recall. >1) Have all US combat troops returned from Grenada, if so when? Yes. Some time in the last six months. >2) Have elections been held, if so when, and who won? Don't think so, but I think there are plans. >3) Is the airport open and what is its capacitiy? I don't know if it's open, but last I heard the U.S. was funding its completion. It really was a rather unexceptional tourist facility all along. >4) Where would one find out about these things out? A half-hour at your public library perusing the New York Times (with index) should tell you for sure (or at least as sure as the CIA wants you to know... :-) ). For details and analysis of elections, watch the specialist journals like the *NACLA Report on the Americas*. (NACLA is the North American Congress on Latin America, and their *Report* is an excellent quarterly written by scholars but readable by laypeople. It's available at all good libraries and newsstands.) They've already printed a good article this year on Sir Eric Gairy, the fellow who used to run the place two or three governments ago and aspires to do so again. He no longer talks about UFOs as much, but he's just as wacky as ever. I welcome corrections to the above, but no flames -- I said I was putting this down from dim memory. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@sally.UTEXAS.EDU --- Leaving the net soon: friends can write for my new snail-mail address.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/02/85)
In article <558@im4u.UUCP> riddle@im4u.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: >This is half-rememembered and could be wrong in some or all details, but >here's what I seem to recall. > >>2) Have elections been held, if so when, and who won? > Don't think so, but I think there are plans. Elections have been held. Sir Eric Gairy's party took 0 or 1 seats (I can't remember which). And I *think* that some other party took all the rest. Gairy is now claiming that the elections were a fraud due to the use of ballots, allegedly provided by the CIA, which automagically checked the member of the CIA favoured party regardless of the voter's actual choice. Undoubtedly, one of his buddies in a UFO told him. Gairy, himself, did not run this time. J.B. Robinson