dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (06/30/85)
Why net.social and net.women? Anyone for net.diatribe? {:-)
> = Mark Dawson
> The only people who see U.S.A. as the world's big brother are you americains.
>If you ever did some travelling into the third world you would find that the
>United States along with the U.S.S.R. are two of the most hated countries in the world. I remember being told to state my country of origin as Canada and to never let people think that you are an americain.
(Don't you know how to use the carraige return key? Or to spell `American'?)
If the world does not see us as a big brother, then why does it come to us for
things like food, medicine, money, credit, education, technology, etc...?
> The reason americains were held hostage by those 'barbaric`s
>in the middle east' was because you stick your probing noses in other peoples
>affairs, you are hated by other nations because of you lust for power, those
>'barbaric`s' know that you want to be in charge and that is why they strike
>out against you.
That is just garbage. But even if it were true, the attack was on the
typical Joe and Jane Lunchpail who have nothing to do with any real or
perceived grievances in the third world; people who spend their lives doing
things like going to work and coming home to kids and utility bills; people
just like the rest of us Americans. In any case, who the hell are you to heap
some guilt trip on those of us who merely occupy a particular space on this
planet trying to live our own lives as best as we can?
> This small group is trying to fight with a lumbering, festering
>, cancerous giant and the only way they can do that is through the use of t
>terror.
I have never understood the purpose of such statements beyond creating pain
and anger. If intended as an insult, then it is a cheap shot. If vitriol,
then it is just destructive. If meant as a criticism, then it is futile,
because if this is an accurate description of what we are, then we cannot act
as anything but; if it is not accurate, then it is out of place. In any case,
such statements are, at best, worthless.
> The 'one of our own' that was killed was a marine, the most hated form
>of Americain intervention. 'The Green Beret' is definitely not one of the
>favorite songs of the third world.
The one who was killed was a sailor.
> Why not blow up Beirut, lets all do our part to advance world hatred of the
>U.S. of A. You americans are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get
>to your goals.
> It is my belief that American stands for AROGANCE!!!
The fact that Beirut was not blown up should tell you something. Again, these
statements create only more pain and anger. But then, that is obviously what
you want -- "lets all do our part to advance world hatred of the U.S. of A.".
>Mark Dawson
>markr@garfield.UUCP
>ps. my apologies to my relatives in Orono and San Diego.
These opinions belong to anybody who wants to claim them.
David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
"To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyerecsdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/01/85)
In article <3140@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >If the world does not see us as a big brother, then why does it come to us for >things like food, medicine, money, credit, education, technology, etc...? Not every country in the free world asks the USA for a handout. A lot of our generosity is motivated by a fear that the Russians would get their first (Russian generosity has a way of creating anti-american countries). >That is just garbage. But even if it were true, the attack was on the >typical Joe and Jane Lunchpail who have nothing to do with any real or >perceived grievances in the third world; people who spend their lives doing >things like going to work and coming home to kids and utility bills; people >just like the rest of us Americans. In any case, who the hell are you to heap >some guilt trip on those of us who merely occupy a particular space on this >planet trying to live our own lives as best as we can? Your right. Too bad those Americans don't spend more time VOTING to change a foreign policy they'll admit sucks. A lot of people who voted for Reagan knew damn well his foreign policy sucked big time, but they didn't think it mattered. It surprises me that the average Englander knows more about American politics than does the average American. Why? Because they get to SEE what happens when Reagan makes a faux pas and WE DON'T CARE! America; love it or leave it? What happened to CHANGE IT? Have you ever read the declaration of independance? America was set up so that its citizens (you and me and them) could change it for the good of all. We're a world power and we should think before we vote! >> Why not blow up Beirut, lets all do our part to advance world hatred of the >>U.S. of A. You americans are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get >>to your goals. >> It is my belief that American stands for AROGANCE!!! > >The fact that Beirut was not blown up should tell you something. Again, these >statements create only more pain and anger. But then, that is obviously what >you want -- "lets all do our part to advance world hatred of the U.S. of A.". Think about what this man is saying before you get your bald eagle feathers ruffled. Do you speak a foreign language? Do you know what happens in Europe or the third world? Do you care? If the answer to any of these questions is "no" then you are an arrogant American. Why? Most Europeans learn English if not French and German too. Most Europeans follow all world events, not just their own country. All Europeans care about other countries. 150 years ago it was different. Europe and Asia were weeks away and nothing in America depended on the price of rice in China. Now it's diffent. The bombs are 20 MINUTES away. What happens in China is very important. It's time for America to change it's attitudes. We're a bull in a china shop now and until we care, as a nation, we are all GUILTY of ARROGANCE. 'nuff said. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
lkk@teddy.UUCP (07/01/85)
In article <3140@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >That is just garbage. But even if it were true, the attack was on the >typical Joe and Jane Lunchpail who have nothing to do with any real or >perceived grievances in the third world; people who spend their lives doing >things like going to work and coming home to kids and utility bills; people >just like the rest of us Americans. Hmm. A little slip there I see. Are you saying that the average American has no knowledge or influence on American foreign policy? And this is a democracy? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (07/02/85)
> That is just garbage. But even if it were true, the attack was on the > typical Joe and Jane Lunchpail who have nothing to do with any real or > perceived grievances in the third world; people who spend their lives doing > things like going to work and coming home to kids and utility bills; people > just like the rest of us Americans. In any case, who the hell are you to heap > some guilt trip on those of us who merely occupy a particular space on this > planet trying to live our own lives as best as we can? > > Why do I keep seeing this kind of argument on the net, that American people shouldn't be blamed for what the administration does? As far as people outside America are concerned, the U.S. administration does speak for and act on behalf of its people. (After all, the U.S. spares no pain in flaunting to other countries what a great democracy it is). Saying to the third world citizens "blame the Administration but don't blame Americans" doesn't cut ice. The American people ARE responsible for the actions of the U.S. administration (especially since this is a democracy and they elected their government). I agree Joe and Jane Lunchpail shouldn't be personally held responsible for American arrogance round the world, but American people collectively are responsible for the grief America causes the third world. - Raghu.
jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (07/02/85)
In article <847@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >Hmm. A little slip there I see. Are you saying that the average >American has no knowledge or influence on American foreign policy? > >And this is a democracy? Uh, last time I checked, this was a democratic republic, not a democracy. Get it straight. We gave up our right to this type of influence when we began to vote... Our only influence is at the polls. The power lies with those whom we give it to (at least in theory...) Get your political systems straight! ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/03/85)
> > Hmm. A little slip there I see. Are you saying that the average > American has no knowledge or influence on American foreign policy? > > Larry Kolodney I don't think that's a slip, actually. I think the average American probably doesn't know much about America's foreign policy regarding Israel, the Shiites, terrorists, or much of anything. I know that until fairly recently I didn't pay much attention to those things. For the most part, unless you go out of your way to learn (read Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, etc.) all you know is what they say on the evening news and perhaps what Reagan said when he was campaigning (which doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on reality). As for influencing foreign policy, beyond voting for the candidate of your choice it would be a full-time job to have any real impact. Sure, you can campaign, write letters, perhaps lobby or contribute to a group that supports what you believe in, but if your candidate doesn't get elected, your letters are ignored, or you just don't have the time, what do you do? Certainly writing letters on the net or discussing issues with friends makes you feel better, but how do you have any REAL impact? marie
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/03/85)
>/* csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) / 8:40 am Jul 1, 1985 */ >Your right. Too bad those Americans don't spend more time VOTING to >change a foreign policy they'll admit sucks. A lot of people who voted >for Reagan knew damn well his foreign policy sucked big time, but they >didn't think it mattered. The fact that Americans may vote for a candidate whose foreign policy they feel is nonsensical (it is not clear that most Americans did feel this way) does not necessarily indicate that they don't care about said policy. It may merely mean that they feel him to be a better candidate overall than the others. >Do you speak a foreign language? Do you know what >happens in Europe or the third world? Do you care? If the answer to any >of these questions is "no" then you are an arrogant American. Why? > >Most Europeans learn English if not French and German too. >Most Europeans follow all world events, not just their own country. >All Europeans care about other countries. The fact an American doesn't do what a European does doesn't make him/her arrogant. If he/she doesn't do these things because of chauvinistic feelings, then he/she is arrogant -- he/she is arrogating to him/herself a superiority that he/she doesn't possess. If he/she doesn't because he/she would rather do other things with his/her time then there is no cause to call him/her arrogant. He/she may be foolish, but not arrogant. >Charles Forsythe Mike Sykora
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/03/85)
In article <1340253@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) / 8:40 am Jul 1, 1985 */ >The fact that Americans may vote for a candidate whose foreign policy they >feel is nonsensical (it is not clear that most Americans did feel this >way) does not necessarily indicate that they don't care about said policy. >It may merely mean that they feel him to be a better candidate overall >than the others. Granted that Reagan may have been over all better, still most American I know (and I don't know a huge percentage) didn't care about foreign policy before and somee still don't. >> [Summary: Do you take the time to learn about other countries and >> their language and cultures? They learn English and follow American >> politics.] > >The fact an American doesn't do what a European does doesn't make him/her >arrogant. If he/she doesn't do these things because of chauvinistic >feelings, then he/she is arrogant -- he/she is arrogating to him/herself >a superiority that he/she doesn't possess. If he/she doesn't because >he/she would rather do other things with his/her time then there is no >cause to call him/her arrogant. He/she may be foolish, but not arrogant. > >>Charles Forsythe > > Mike Sykora Good point, but if you see arrogance as apathy motivated by ignorance ("I don't know and I don't care), then this is arrogance. Webster says it's "a feeling of superiority brought on by presumtuous claims". Now most Americans don't feel SUPERIOR to Europeans outwardly, but the fact that they don't consider them important enough to study is somewhat presumptuous and implies superiority. Perhaps arrogance is to strong a word in this case, but ignorance applies and being ignorant "fools" is not a good image either. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (07/04/85)
>Hmm. A little slip there I see. Are you saying that the average >American has no knowledge or influence on American foreign policy? > > >And this is a democracy? It is frightening how little your average American knows about foreign policy. What was the last election decided on foreign policy issues? Economics is another matter, everyone has a pocketbook, so they may not understand the theory, but they know when it goes wrong... -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa "I know a computer when I talk to one." -The Doctor. (Anybody know which episode???)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/05/85)
>/* csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) / 4:59 pm Jul 3, 1985 */ >Now most Americans don't feel SUPERIOR to Europeans outwardly, but the fact >that they don't consider them important enough to study is somewhat >presumptuous and implies superiority. I disagree with this point. Many Americans may indeed feel SUPERIOR to Europeans, but the fact that they don't consider them important enough to study doesn't necessarily imply such feelings. >Perhaps arrogance is to strong a >word in this case, but ignorance applies and being ignorant "fools" is >not a good image either. It's not image that is important. One can pin labels such as ignorant on people, but if their ignorance has no adverse consequences, people probably won!'t and shouldn't care. >Charles Forsythe Mike Sykora
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (07/08/85)
>From: lkk@teddy.UUCP >In article <3140@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >>That is just garbage. But even if it were true, the attack was on the >>typical Joe and Jane Lunchpail who have nothing to do with any real or >>perceived grievances in the third world; people who spend their lives doing >>things like going to work and coming home to kids and utility bills; people >>just like the rest of us Americans. >Hmm. A little slip there I see. Are you saying that the average >American has no knowledge or influence on American foreign policy? >And this is a democracy? One could say that since Americans elect represenatatives who in turn establish policy, they are responsible for the results of that policy. I am not trying to justify dirty deals, but I find it hard to believe that all (or even most) of the world's problems are due to US policy. It is too easy; it answers too many questions. Problems have existed for human beings everywhere since the beginning of time. Some have been caused by Americans; many have not. To indict *all* Americans as being the villains is not justified. It is possible to establish a link between anybody with anybody else on this planet. It just depends on how thin to make the connection. But, the belief that one can use this to fix blame for whatever problem to the typical, average American is a little too gratuitous. >-- >Sport Death, >Larry Kolodney >(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk >(INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc These opinions belong to anybody who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/09/85)
In article <1340259@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>/* csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) / 4:59 pm Jul 3, 1985 */ > >>Now most Americans don't feel SUPERIOR to Europeans outwardly, but the fact >>that they don't consider them important enough to study is somewhat >>presumptuous and implies superiority. > >I disagree with this point. Many Americans may indeed feel SUPERIOR to >Europeans, but the fact that they don't consider them important enough to >study doesn't necessarily imply such feelings. I didn't mention feelings. I was talking state of being. I said it implied they ARE superior not that they FEEL superior. Implications are implications whether or not they are backed up by real feelings. >>not a good image either. > >It's not image that is important. One can pin labels such as >ignorant on people, but if their ignorance has no adverse >consequences, people probably won!'t and shouldn't care. > >>Charles Forsythe > > Mike Sykora Image is what we were discussing. Somebody was upset at the suggestion that the rest of the world hates America. They wrote a long letter about how wonderful we really are. Maybe it's true, but it's our image that counts in this situation. A friend of mine returned from England and told me: "Depending where you are, Russia and America are first and second on the list of the most hated country." Food for thought. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (07/09/85)
> Why do I keep seeing this kind of argument on the net, that American > people shouldn't be blamed for what the administration does? As far > as people outside America are concerned, the U.S. administration does > speak for and act on behalf of its people. (After all, the U.S. > spares no pain in flaunting to other countries what a great democracy > it is). > > Saying to the third world citizens "blame the Administration but > don't blame Americans" doesn't cut ice. The American people ARE > responsible for the actions of the U.S. administration (especially > since this is a democracy and they elected their government). I agree > Joe and Jane Lunchpail shouldn't be personally held responsible for > American arrogance round the world, but American people collectively > are responsible for the grief America causes the third world. > - Raghu. >> I have to disagree with this statement. Granted the President and >> the chairpersons of Congressional committees are elected by us, >> the real power in the Federal government ( Secretaries of War, Commerce, >> Interior, Defense etc.) are appointed. These people change the course >> of American policy on a day to day basis and almost nobody knows who >> in the hell they are. >> >> If a majority votes somebody into public office it is our RESPONSIBILTY >> to monitor their actions and to have them reflect our feelings, but with >> and appointed position I for one assume NO guilt for their actions. Does >> anybody remember James Watt for example. >> >> --Bob Nebert-- >> Burroughs Corp. San Diego
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (07/11/85)
Larry Kolodney: > Are you saying that the average American has no knowledge or influence > on American foreign policy? > > And this is a democracy? My impression -- in the four years I've been in this country -- is that the "average" American has little knowledge of, and even less interest in, what goes on abroad. Surveys seem to bear this out: I remember reading about one last year where most of the people interviewed didn't know which side the USA was backing in El Salvador. I'm amazed that this should be the state of affairs here given the tremendous amount of information people have free access to, and my conclusion has been that most people just don't give a damn about what's happening beyond their own backyards. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (07/15/85)
> Larry Kolodney: > > Are you saying that the average American has no knowledge or influence > > on American foreign policy? > > And this is a democracy? > My impression -- in the four years I've been in this country -- is that > the "average" American has little knowledge of, and even less interest > in, what goes on abroad. Surveys seem to bear this out: I remember > reading about one last year where most of the people interviewed didn't > know which side the USA was backing in El Salvador. I'm amazed > that this should be the state of affairs here given the tremendous > amount of information people have free access to, and my conclusion > has been that most people just don't give a damn about what's > happening beyond their own backyards. The USA is backing the side RUTHLESS_MURDERERS_A against RUTHLESS_MURDERERS_B. Once you understand this, a great deal becomes clear... I don't have a backyard, which probably explains why I don't care about anything...:-) -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA I have a bad habit of thinking of tremendously witty .signatures just before I fall asleep. If I kept paper by my bed, you'd probably be laughing uncontrollably at this very moment. Sorry.
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (07/18/85)
>From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) >>It's not image that is important. One can pin labels such as >>ignorant on people, but if their ignorance has no adverse >>consequences, people probably won!'t and shouldn't care. >> >> >> Mike Sykora >Image is what we were discussing. Somebody was upset at the suggestion >that the rest of the world hates America. They wrote a long letter about >how wonderful we really are. Maybe it's true, but it's our image that >counts in this situation. A friend of mine returned from England and >told me: >"Depending where you are, Russia and America are first and second on the >list of the most hated country." >Food for thought. >Charles Forsythe A few questions (no answer required; just think about it): Is the hate justified? Does it, in turn, justify attacks? Can those who hate us be made to like us instead? Even if it is possible, is it up to us to make it happen? I know a man who was walking down the street in broad daylight when someone attacked him from behind. He wasn't robbed, just beaten. Besides being hurt and scared, he was also bewildered. He was wondering why someone hated him so much just to drop out of the clear blue sky and start beating on him. He had no idea whether it was something he said, did, or did not do. This happened several years ago, and he still doesn't know. Does that make him ignorant? Even if he found the reason, does it justify the attack? Would he deserve to be saddled with some guilt trip by someone who thinks that he must have made his attacker angry? To stop this sort of thing from happening again, is it up to him to change in order to accomodate his attacker? Nonsense. The point is that I think it is rather naive to believe that people who are attacked must have deserved it; that becoming nicer or more docile will insulate you from hate. These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (07/18/85)
In article <356@sbcs.UUCP> debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) writes: >My impression -- in the four years I've been in this country -- is that >the "average" American has little knowledge of, and even less interest >in, what goes on abroad. Surveys seem to bear this out: I remember >reading about one last year where most of the people interviewed didn't >know which side the USA was backing in El Salvador. I'm amazed >that this should be the state of affairs here given the tremendous >amount of information people have free access to, and my conclusion >has been that most people just don't give a damn about what's >happening beyond their own backyards. All countries have this to a certain extent. It's just seems lot more blatant in the US. For a country who has an official stance of "Saviour/Protector of the Free World", they don't practice what they preach too well. Examples abound. One primary example is WW II: It wasn't until 1941 when Germany declared war on the US (eight days after Pearl Harbour) that the US decided to enter the European and Atlantic war. Prior to that, most of the aid that was provided to Britain and the other allies was under-the-table (Roosevelt was afraid of being impeached, since some VERY powerful US citizens and lobbying groups backed the Germans - I won't name any names for fear of getting nuked by their fans. Lend-lease was considerably after the war started.). In spite of this fact, that's not what US history books say (or so I have been told by some expatriate Americans who've been reading some non-US originated history). Many Europeans still haven't forgiven the US for leaving them in the lurch (and being hypocritical about it) for so long. The US has been practicing "Isolationism" for most of this century. The last 50 years should make it pretty plain that (with a few notable exceptions like Korea) the US (primarily citizenry) doesn't get particularly interested unless US lives have been lost or threatened. (eg: Iran, the recent TWA flight, Pearl Harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (a 'nother story to be sure!) etc.) -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/19/85)
Actually, there's an old phrase which comes to mind... "America has no friends, only interests." Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo No part of this message may reproduce, store itself in a retrieval system, or transmit disease, in any form, without the permissiveness of the author.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/19/85)
> Larry Kolodney: > > Are you saying that the average American has no knowledge or influence > > on American foreign policy? > > > > And this is a democracy? > > My impression -- in the four years I've been in this country -- is that > the "average" American has little knowledge of, and even less interest > in, what goes on abroad. Surveys seem to bear this out: I remember > reading about one last year where most of the people interviewed didn't > know which side the USA was backing in El Salvador. I'm amazed > that this should be the state of affairs here given the tremendous > amount of information people have free access to, and my conclusion > has been that most people just don't give a damn about what's > happening beyond their own backyards. > > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > The situation is worse than that: only 12% of the population could identify which side the US government supports in both El Salvador and Nicaragua. Even my wife, who is exposed to a lot more foreign affairs information than most, was confused as to who we were supporting in which country. Perhaps most people are too busy living their lives to waste energy and time worrying about politics. Sounds like a good argument against unlimited democracy.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (07/21/85)
> >Image is what we were discussing. Somebody was upset at the suggestion > >that the rest of the world hates America. They wrote a long letter about > >how wonderful we really are. Maybe it's true, but it's our image that > >counts in this situation. A friend of mine returned from England and > >told me: > > >"Depending where you are, Russia and America are first and second on the > >list of the most hated country." > > I know a man who was walking down the street in broad daylight when someone > attacked him from behind. He wasn't robbed, just beaten. Besides being hurt > and scared, he was also bewildered. He was wondering why someone hated him > so much just to drop out of the clear blue sky and start beating on him. > He had no idea whether it was something he said, did, or did not do. This > happened several years ago, and he still doesn't know. Does that make him > ignorant? Even if he found the reason, does it justify the attack? Would he > deserve to be saddled with some guilt trip by someone who thinks that he must > have made his attacker angry? To stop this sort of thing from happening again, > is it up to him to change in order to accomodate his attacker? Nonsense. > > The point is that I think it is rather naive to believe that people who are > attacked must have deserved it; that becoming nicer or more docile will > insulate you from hate. > > These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. > > David Olson > ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo > > "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere You know, I've been hearing for 30 years now how much we are hated. And lately I've been reading that it's a toss up between The U.S. and Russia for the most hated country in the world award. I take particular offense at being compared to Russia. We certainly are not on the same moral plane as Russia. But enough. I'm fed up with those that say they hate us. It is their problem, their inse- curity, their psychosis. What we have to realize is that it's their problem, don't make it mine. Don't attempt to make me feel wrong, unethical, immoral, or guilty. Someone once said if everyone likes me then for sure I must be doing something wrong, and if the wrong people like me than I must be downright disgusting. So let us leave the outrageous or unfounded opinions of the self rightious where they belong, in the cerebral id from which they came. "I hang out my yellow briefs for all the world to see, you hang yours in the basement and say you never pee."
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/23/85)
In article <10615@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >I take particular offense at being compared >to Russia. We certainly are not on the same moral plane as Russia. It's this kind of unthinking highmindedness that irritates people. Why do you say this? Have you ever given much serious thought to what the US government really does? Has your phone ever been tapped? I know people who's phone has been tapped -- because they were political feminists. I wonder if the KGB came in for consulting work. Also, in light of previous topics: Russia has never USED a nuclear weapon to kill anybody, America has. Same moral plane? It's much to complecated. It brings to mind a line from Woody Allen's "Love and Death": Russian Soldier: Who would you rather be ruled by, Napoleon or the Czar? Woody (also a Russian soldier): Doesn't matter, they're both crooks. >I'm fed up with those that say they hate us. Nobody likes to be told they're unpopular. >What we have to realize is that it's their problem, >don't make it mine. It's americans they hate. Are you an american? >Don't attempt to make me feel wrong, unethical, immoral, or >guilty. I wouldn't dream of it. All I suggested was that we should try to understand those who hate us. The letter you responded to was about a man who was attacked on a foreign street for no reason. He wanted to know why. Good for him! You don't seem to want to know why, you just want to respond with more hate. That never solved ANYTHING. > >"I hang out my yellow briefs for all the world to see, you hang yours in the >basement and say you never pee." You wonder why your (international) neighbors don't like you... -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (07/24/85)
> Russia has never USED a nuclear weapon to kill anybody, > America has. Same moral plane? It's much to complecated. > You're right they haven't yet. They have other ways that get much less atten- ion. I could never condone the use of nuclear weapons on anyone. But in times of total global war, why should anyone think that sane and rational actions will always prevail. The fact that the war was ended in a mad flash of death in no way minimizes the fact that the start of such a war was just as insane and irrational as the way it ended. And as history tells it, we had little to do with its beginning and much to do with its ending. > > > >"I hang out my yellow briefs for all the world to see, you hang yours in the > >basement and say you never pee." > You wonder why your (international) neighbors don't like you... > Very funny. But no, I don't wonder anymore. As I stated previously, it is my neighbors problem, please don't attempt to make it mine. > --
thill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (07/25/85)
> In article <356@sbcs.UUCP> debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) writes: > > >My impression -- in the four years I've been in this country -- is that > >the "average" American has little knowledge of, and even less interest > >in, what goes on abroad. Surveys seem to bear this out: I remember > >reading about one last year where most of the people interviewed didn't > >know which side the USA was backing in El Salvador. I'm amazed > >that this should be the state of affairs here given the tremendous > >amount of information people have free access to, and my conclusion > >has been that most people just don't give a damn about what's > >happening beyond their own backyards. > > All countries have this to a certain extent. It's just seems lot more > blatant in the US. In my dealings with people from other countries I have found them no more involved or informed as a whole than people in the US. It is easy to point a finger at us because of our high profile but there are fingers enough for all. > For a country who has an official stance of > "Saviour/Protector of the Free World", they don't practice what they > preach too well. Examples abound. One primary example is WW II: It > wasn't until 1941 when Germany declared war on the US (eight days after > Pearl Harbour) that the US decided to enter the European and Atlantic > war. Prior to that, most of the aid that was provided to Britain and > the other allies was under-the-table (Roosevelt was afraid of being > impeached, since some VERY powerful US citizens and lobbying groups > backed the Germans - I won't name any names for fear of getting nuked > by their fans. Lend-lease was considerably after the war started.). Oh really? I seem to recall that we were helping Britain before we actually declared war. Things such as escorting merchant shipping in 1940 come to mind. > In spite of this fact, that's not what US history books say (or so I > have been told by some expatriate Americans who've been reading some > non-US originated history). Ah yes, the Soviets completely deny that the Murmansk convoys existed. Is this the "non-US originated history" you speak of? > Many Europeans still haven't forgiven the > US for leaving them in the lurch (and being hypocritical about it) for > so long. The US has been practicing "Isolationism" for most of this > century. > -- > Chris Lewis, > BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321 I suggest that you read Winston C's book _The_Gathering_Storm_ before you go blaming the USA for WW II. True, at that time American was in an isolationalistic (I hope that is a word :-) mood, however, both France and Britain due to their poor foreign policy decisions during the 30's led themselves into WW II. Tom Hill uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!thill
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/25/85)
> >Image is what we were discussing. Somebody was upset at the suggestion > >that the rest of the world hates America. They wrote a long letter about > >how wonderful we really are. Maybe it's true, but it's our image that > >counts in this situation. A friend of mine returned from England and > >told me: > > >"Depending where you are, Russia and America are first and second on the > >list of the most hated country." > > >Food for thought. > > >Charles Forsythe > > A few questions (no answer required; just think about it): Is the hate > justified? Does it, in turn, justify attacks? Can those who hate us be > made to like us instead? Even if it is possible, is it up to us to make > it happen? > > The point is that I think it is rather naive to believe that people who are > attacked must have deserved it; that becoming nicer or more docile will > insulate you from hate. > David Olson > ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. These have nothing to do with "image" or irrational hate but history and current facts. For one thing, the rest of the world sees the 6% of the world represented by Americans consuming over 50% of the world's resources. (this has probably shifted somewhat lately but the basic imbalance remains) Third World countries and even European countries look around and what do they see? American corporations everywhere extracting their resources. The current trade deficit doesn't change the control by American-based corporations - what has changed is that these corporations begin to manufacture overseas instead of in America so they can get cheap, non-union labor. But the ownership and control of these corporations is still predominately American. Countries like Nicaragua have vivid remembrances of being occupied by US Marines for years to protect the holdings of the United Fruit Company. The Vietnamese remember that the US came in to help the French retain Indochina as a French colony after World War II. The Iranians remember that the CIA deposed the democratically elected Iranian president, Mossadegh in favor of the Shah in 1954. Now the South Africans notice that the Reagan administration has been shipping the South African government arms- arms which they see used against their own struggle to eliminate apartheid. People in Western Europe (as contrasted with their governments) see more nuclear weapons being crammed down their throats to suit American views of the nuclear balance - while Europeans see themselves as most likely to be the first to be fried if such weapons were ever used. Over 100 countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact to voluntarily agree not to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet as part of that agreement, the Soviet Union and U.S. agreed to limit their own nuclear weapons. They haven't -- instead they have doubled their nuclear arsenals in the last decade. If the superpowers decide to have a nuclear war the whole world would pay the cost if the Nuclear Winter effect is valid. Regardless the whole world would pay the cost of massive poisoning of the whole ecosphere. The fact that the rest of the world could be wiped out due to either an American or Soviet unilateral decision to launch a nuclear attack does not make either country well-loved. tim sevener whuxl!orb
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/26/85)
In article <10686@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> You wonder why your (international) neighbors don't like you... >> >Very funny. But no, I don't wonder anymore. As I stated previously, it is my >neighbors problem, please don't attempt to make it mine. The entire reason I entered into this particular debate was that many people were claiming that "the foreigners had no justification and (even) no RIGHT to hate us." They have a right to hate us and a reasonable amount of justification (even if it IS nit-picking). It's not your problem if you can successfully isolate yourself from the rest of the world. Never go to an unfriendly country. Be careful, in your job, to stay away from foriegn trade situations. On a personal level, there's no reason any one of us should give a damn how someone 3000 miles (5100 km) away feels. However, in a global sense, the world is getting too small for petty nationalism. For the sake of world relations (read PEACE), we should listen to our critics a little and change if necessary. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (07/26/85)
> There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. > These have nothing to do with "image" or irrational hate but history > and current facts. [A list of "images"] The hate may be very real, but does it make the attacks on US citizens more acceptable? Are we supposed to start beating on ourselves as well? Do you honestly believe that if the US became more docile that the attacks would stop? There has been a rationale on the net (as well as other places) concerning terrorism/hijacking that is remarkably similar to the following line of thinking: If a woman is attacked, she asked for it. Her attacker hates women, because his mother/wife/whoever did him wrong, and so he sees women as the cause of all his problems. Since she is a woman, she drove him to do it. Therefore, she must change her ways, if this sort of thing is to stop. NONSENSE! > tim sevener whuxl!orb These opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/26/85)
> == Tim Sevener ----------------------------- > For one thing, the rest of the world sees the 6% of the world represented > by Americans consuming over 50% of the world's resources. (this has probably > shifted somewhat lately but the basic imbalance remains) ----------------------------- Your 50% figure is way too high. The per capita consumption of resources by the U. S. is no longer grossly out of line with that of Japan or Western Europe. As more and more energy intensive industry (e.g. steel) leaves the U. S., the relative consumption will decrease further. ----------------------------- > Third World countries and even European countries look around and what > do they see? American corporations everywhere extracting their resources. > The current trade deficit doesn't change the control by American-based > corporations - what has changed is that these corporations begin to > manufacture overseas instead of in America so they can get cheap, > non-union labor. But the ownership and control of these corporations > is still predominately American. ----------------------------- Let's see. American owned corporations provide jobs overseas, so the population of those countries should hate America. Great logic. The labor may be cheap by U. S. standards, but the pay is usually good by local scales. ----------------------------- > Countries like Nicaragua have vivid remembrances of being occupied by > US Marines for years to protect the holdings of the United Fruit Company. > The Vietnamese remember that the US came in to help the French > retain Indochina as a French colony after World War II. > The Iranians remember that the CIA deposed the democratically elected > Iranian president, Mossadegh in favor of the Shah in 1954. > Now the South Africans notice that the Reagan administration has been > shipping the South African government arms- arms which they see > used against their own struggle to eliminate apartheid. ----------------------------- I would agree with you, Tim, on these four points. You could have added a few others, for example, the coup in Chile. ----------------------------- > People in Western Europe (as contrasted with their governments) see > more nuclear weapons being crammed down their throats to suit > American views of the nuclear balance - while Europeans see themselves > as most likely to be the first to be fried if such weapons were ever used. ----------------------------- If you are referring to cruise missiles, the European governments asked for them, because they were worried that without European based missiles, the U. S. would not risk Soviet retaliation to defend Europe. All the relevant European countries have freely elected governments. If some Europeans don't like decisions made by their own government, they should vote it out of office. Sounds to me like a pretty stupid reason to blame America. ----------------------------- > Over 100 countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact to voluntarily > agree not to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet as part of that > agreement, the Soviet Union and U.S. agreed to limit their own nuclear > weapons. They haven't -- instead they have doubled their nuclear arsenals > in the last decade. If the superpowers decide to have a nuclear war > the whole world would pay the cost if the Nuclear Winter effect is valid. > Regardless the whole world would pay the cost of massive poisoning of > the whole ecosphere. > The fact that the rest of the world could be wiped out due to > either an American or Soviet unilateral decision to launch > a nuclear attack does not make either country well-loved. ----------------------------- True. However, if the U. S. threw away all its nuclear weapons tomorrow, the very same Europeans now denouncing America the strongest would quickly realize the simple fact that these very same weapons have kept them from the fate of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc., etc., etc. ----------------------------- -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (07/26/85)
> In article <10615@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >I take particular offense at being compared > >to Russia. We certainly are not on the same moral plane as Russia. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > [Charles Forsythe] > It's this kind of unthinking highmindedness that irritates people. Why > do you say this? Have you ever given much serious thought to what the US > government really does? Has your phone ever been tapped? I know people > who's phone has been tapped -- because they were political feminists. > I wonder if the KGB came in for consulting work. Also, in light of > previous topics: Russia has never USED a nuclear weapon to kill anybody, > America has. Same moral plane? It's much to complecated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If you were in the Soviet Union, Mr. Forsythe, you would not only have your phone tapped, you would be sent to a mental institution. After reading your latest gem, I think I might support the Russians in this (only 1/2 -) ). Read some Russian history, particularly of the Stalin era. You don't have to take my word for this. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (07/26/85)
> All I suggested was that we should try to > understand those who hate us. The letter you responded to was about a > man who was attacked on a foreign street for no reason. He wanted to > know why. Good for him! You don't seem to want to know why, you just > want to respond with more hate. That never solved ANYTHING. First of all, it was not on a foreign street. (just a correction). Why is it "good for him"? It may be a natural impulse to ask "WHY". But, good for him? Is it up to him to fix his attacker's problems? My complaint is with people who performed the following scenario on an international scale: (As far as I know, the following did not happen, but just suppose it did for a moment.) After the attack, this man is hurting, scared, wondering, "Why me"? Person X sees him and rather than trying to soothe his wounds, instead decides that he must be guilty of something to cause his attacker to beat on him. Otherwise, why the attack? So X reads off a list of greivances that X thinks someone *like* him did to someone *like* his attacker. He protests. X then tells him that even if he didn't cause those greivances, he was obliged to fix them. That in any case, he is responsible, and therefore deserving of everything he got. Again I say, NONSENSE! These opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. > Charles Forsythe > CSDF@MIT-VAX > "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" > -Rev. Wang Zeep David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (07/26/85)
> Charles Forsythe writes: > The entire reason I entered into this particular debate was that many > people were claiming that "the foreigners had no justification and > (even) no RIGHT to hate us." They have a right to hate us and a > reasonable amount of justification (even if it IS nit-picking). No one that I know of on the net said we were not aloud to be hated. If some- one wants to hate us fine, but that in itself does not ALWAYS make the hatred justified. Thus I do not ALWAYS have to be concerned. > It's not your problem if you can successfully isolate yourself from the > rest of the world. Never go to an unfriendly country. Be careful, in > your job, to stay away from foriegn trade situations. On a personal > level, there's no reason any one of us should give a damn how someone > 3000 miles (5100 km) away feels. However, in a global sense, the world > is getting too small for petty nationalism. For the sake of world > relations (read PEACE), we should listen to our critics a little and > change if necessary. I'm willing to listen to any grievences. But who determines how much we change, or how much we listen? What criticisms are merely self serving ulterior motives disguised as vanguards of world peace? i.e. get the missles out of Europe but use yours if you have to protect us. Khomenini has a few opinions about us, he called us the Great Satan. Are you suggesting for a moment that I deal with this or even acknowledge him. Sure these are out- standing examples, but there must be many very subtle ones out there lurking in the shadows. We'll it's too close to the weekend to go any further, so I'm off, and besides, my finger tips are quite burnt from my hot little keyboard.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/27/85)
Tom Hill to Chris Lewis: > I suggest that you read Winston C's book _The_Gathering_Storm_ before > you go blaming the USA for WW II. True, at that time American was > in an isolationalistic (I hope that is a word :-) mood, however, both France and > Britain due to their poor foreign policy decisions during the 30's led > themselves into WW II. > > Tom Hill And I suggest that you reread what Chris wrote. Nowhere in his posting did he "blame" the US for WWII: > > For a country who has an official stance of > > "Saviour/Protector of the Free World", they don't practice what they > > preach too well. Examples abound. One primary example is WW II: It > > wasn't until 1941 when Germany declared war on the US (eight days after > > Pearl Harbour) that the US decided to enter the European and Atlantic > > war. Prior to that, most of the aid that was provided to Britain and > > the other allies was under-the-table (Roosevelt was afraid of being > > impeached, since some VERY powerful US citizens and lobbying groups > > backed the Germans - I won't name any names for fear of getting nuked > > by their fans. Lend-lease was considerably after the war started.). > > Many Europeans still haven't forgiven the > > US for leaving them in the lurch (and being hypocritical about it) for > > so long. The US has been practicing "Isolationism" for most of this > > century. > > -- > > Chris Lewis, -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
dougu@daemon.UUCP (Doug Urner) (07/28/85)
>>> If a majority votes somebody into public office it is our RESPONSIBILTY >>> to monitor their actions and to have them reflect our feelings, but with >>> and appointed position I for one assume NO guilt for their actions. Does >>> anybody remember James Watt for example. >>> >>> --Bob Nebert-- >>> Burroughs Corp. San Diego Ahem, but I beg to differ. Our government is our govenment no matter how it gets there. If I, or anyone else, wants to be absolved of responsibility for the actions of our government then I had better be involved in defining the policies of our government. (I guess I'm making an assumption here... :-) Anything else seems to me to be, perhaps implicit, approval of the actions of our government. But then that is the way of a democracy, however flawed. I do, by the way, remember James Watt and I like to think that I did my part to make it a little harder for him to run amuck in the woods. I certianly wasn't going to sit around and let him have his way just because I didn't get a chance to vote against the @*%&!. -- Doug Urner Small Systems Support Group, Tektronix, Inc (503)627-5037 ..!{decvax,ucbvax}!tektronix!dougu
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/29/85)
In article <3377@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >> The letter you responded to was about a >> man who was attacked on a foreign street for no reason. He wanted to >> know why. Good for him! You don't seem to want to know why, you just >> want to respond with more hate. That never solved ANYTHING. > >First of all, it was not on a foreign street. (just a correction). > >My complaint is with people who performed the following scenario on an >international scale: (As far as I know, the following did not happen, but >just suppose it did for a moment.) After the attack, this man is hurting, >scared, wondering, "Why me"? Person X sees him and rather than trying to >soothe his wounds, instead decides that he must be guilty of something to >cause his attacker to beat on him. Otherwise, why the attack? So X reads >off a list of greivances that X thinks someone *like* him did to someone >*like* his attacker. He protests. X then tells him that even if he didn't >cause those greivances, he was obliged to fix them. That in any case, he >is responsible, and therefore deserving of everything he got. > >Again I say, NONSENSE! I have to agree with your point, but I don't see that connection to the discussion. If the attacker came out and said,"I hit you because you are ugly," then perhaps even the "Don Black" solution (a bullet in the head) would be perfect. But if the attacker came out and said,"You killed my children you slimy American bastard!" then the bullet-in-the-head response would be nasty. I don't think there are many El Salvadorians who dislike the Americans for better reasons than ugliness. >"To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere To label who has sense and who is a fool is the privilege of the arrogant. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I can't think of the most offensive thing I've said... ...what's your mother's name again?" -Rev. Wang Zeep
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/29/85)
In article <962@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) writes: >If you were in the Soviet Union, Mr. Forsythe, you would not only >have your phone tapped, you would be sent to a mental institution. >After reading your latest gem, I think I might support the Russians >in this (only 1/2 -) ). >Read some Russian history, particularly of the Stalin era. You don't >have to take my word for this. If I may but in with my two cents worth, if you want to go into history you'll find some very interesting reading about how the blacks were treated in 'the good old USA' even after their so-called emancipation. But really, I don't *hate* Americans. People are pretty much the same the world over!!! It is just annoying how nationally chauvenistic Americans can sometimes be. Even here in Canada, we who are probably the USA's best friends sometimes get a little miffed at how Americans seem to think the world ends at the 49th parallel. Things like acid rain come over that border and all the US seems to think is, "Whew, we got rid of that nasty stuff." This is the attitude that probably hurts the US the most. You, like everybody else, are your own worst enemies. Please understand that I am not trying just to bash on America. I am hoping that some of you guys down their will do a little thinking and maybe find some ways to improve yourselves. It might make life a little easier for some of your friends. Cheers, Fred Williams
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/30/85)
>> >I take particular offense at being compared >> >to Russia. We certainly are not on the same moral plane as Russia. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> It's this kind of unthinking highmindedness that irritates people. Why >> do you say this? Have you ever given much serious thought to what the US >> government really does? >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Read some Russian history, particularly of the Stalin era. You don't >have to take my word for this. >Bill Tanenbaum I've read about the Stalin era. Maybe you haven't. It seems to teach us that a government can be a self-serving as it wants, massively abusing civil libiterties and yet claim that it's all for the people. Sound familiar? Maybe you weren't a japanese american during world war II. Maybe you weren't a "communist sympathizer" during the '50's. Maybe you weren't a black person 120+ years ago. Maybe you weren't a native american (any time in history will do). Here it comes... the massive flame saying "how can you pick on the good 'ol USA?!!!!" I'm not really. I never said that we were the evil of the universe, I merely meant to point out that our hands are not spotless. A simple assertion such as "we are not on the same moral plane" is ludicrous! Read some american history, particularly during the McCarthy era. You don't have to take my word for this. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I can't think of the most offensive thing I've said... ...what's your mother's name again?" -Rev. Wang Zeep
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/31/85)
> > There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. > > The hate may be very real, but does it make the attacks > on US citizens more acceptable? Whether or not these attacks are acceptable is moot. The point the sympathizers (of America-bashers) were attempting to make deals with the sources of the America-bashing behavior. We should not condone the attacks, but we should attempt to determine why they happen. If there is justification for the hate (not the attacks, flamers), which I believe there is, we should attempt to address those causes. > Are we supposed to start beating on ourselves as well? > Do you honestly believe that if the US became more docile > that the attacks would stop? I don't believe we should become submissive, but we must address the very real reasons why America is perceived as a global leech, consuming the world's resources without providing for those not American. > There has been a rationale on the net (as well as other places) concerning > terrorism/hijacking that is remarkably similar to the following line of > thinking: If a woman is attacked, she asked for it. Her attacker hates > women, because his mother/wife/whoever did him wrong, and so he sees women > as the cause of all his problems. Since she is a woman, she drove him to do > it. Therefore, she must change her ways, if this sort of thing is to stop. > > David Olson > ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo I don't find this analagous to my feelings on the subject. I don't support hijacking and I don't support rape. The hijackers/terrorists should not be accomodated in their demands and they should be punished for their actions. A rapist with a history of childhood abuse and neglect should be punished for his crime. If however there is a way in which we can prevent child abuse and neglect (which in turn will reduce rape tendencies) we should pursue it. Americans are largely ignorant of the extent to which our prosperity is dependent on the oppression of non-Americans. We are taught to believe that hard work and ingenuity are the forces that have propelled us to our status as world leaders. While we have worked hard and are ingenious, we have fueled these attributes with resources from other countries. The U.S.S.R. does the same thing, but they haven't done it as long, so exploited peoples are more naive towards Marxism. If the U.S. would reverse its foreign policies and assist non-Americans in establishing true democracies (not these puppet fascist regimes who serve American mulitinational corporate interests), we would find America treated with respect and the Marxist surge would subside. Let's show the world that democracy is better through actions, not bogus rhetoric. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (07/31/85)
In article <494@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > >I've read about the Stalin era. Maybe you haven't. It seems to teach us >that a government can be a self-serving as it wants, massively abusing >civil libiterties and yet claim that it's all for the people. > >Sound familiar? Maybe you weren't a japanese american during world war >II. Maybe you weren't a "communist sympathizer" during the '50's. Maybe >you weren't a black person 120+ years ago. Maybe you weren't a native >american (any time in history will do). > >Here it comes... the massive flame saying "how can you pick on the good >'ol USA?!!!!" I'm not really. I never said that we were the evil of the >universe, I merely meant to point out that our hands are not spotless. A >simple assertion such as "we are not on the same moral plane" is >ludicrous! > >Read some american history, particularly during the McCarthy era. You >don't have to take my word for this. > >-- >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX >"I can't think of the most offensive thing I've said... > ...what's your mother's name again?" >-Rev. Wang Zeep Be serious Charles. Nothing in the history of the United States in this century compares with the outright genocide that occured in the soviet union during the stalin era. Surely we've had some serious blights on our history (black slavery, indian genocide), but to compare the level of freedom today in the U.S. with that in the USSR is doing a grave injustice to those suffering in that country. Both the quantity and quality of police state tactics in this country pale by comparison to those used by the KGB. Come on Charles, you can stop proving how "politically correct" you are. You don't have to feel obliged to go overboard in fighting anti-soviet hysteria by being equally blind in the opposite direction. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (07/31/85)
In article <301@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) writes: (The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...) >the instigators of that war to an early surrender, thereby avoiding tremendous >bloodshed (on both sides) and total destruction of their nation and people. > The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? There was just this week an article by Theodore H. White in the NY Times Magazine recalling the war on Japan; the inhumanitarian sentiments expressed there turned me off. Lots of revenge in him. He wants to blame the Japanese for building competitive industries with technology the US gave Japan to ward off starvation, no less. The historical account of the war shows the same lust for revenge as Mr. White had in his article forty years later. But revenge is not a sufficient excuse for the cold-blooded murder of civilians. The US knew it was on the verge of victory. It could have considered the tradeoffs in lives from one strategy or another, especially civilian lives. The historical record shows no such niceties in the decision(s) to drop the bombs. >It's often been said that we should have dropped the bomb on Fuji instead of >a populace. Consider that the bomb was not considered reliable, that there was >a fair chance that it might not explode if dropped (like so many conventional >bombs). A failure in that attempt would have only strengthened their resolve, >forcing us into even more drastic actions, resulting in the deaths of even >more human beings than if it had never been dropped. (The attempt, failed, >would have made us look *very* weak and without resolve in Japanese eyes. It >would have actually encouraged them: 1. We have a most unreliable superweapon. >2. We don't have the resolve to actually use it.) If it worked, more than 100,000 lives would be saved. If it failed, then maybe a bomb would end up being dropped anyhow, thereby not saving 100,000 lives. That's better than just dropping the bomb. I read somewhere that the second bomb was dropped to see if it would work, since it was more experimental (used plutonium instead of uranium) than the first bomb. Dropping it on a civilian population served two purposes at once, I guess. It was dropped on Nagasaki. The second bomb was not dropped because the Japanese had decided to continue fighting. Most arguments about the morality of the "bomb" focus only on the first one. >It was most unfortunate that it was used, but consider ALL the circumstances >before you start getting judgemental. This particular circumstance will never >arise again. >-- >William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill War is war, and it's hell, and so are atrocities. The dropping of the atomic bomb was just more effective than the concentration camps, since we still have it around today. It's amusing how the US tries to show a crazed skull's face to its enemies and a caring, fatherly "we are the world -- I did it for the best of reasons" face to the rest of us. All governments do this to some degree, but I think the US believes it can persuade people that it acts as a moral actor and conquers the contradictions of "circumstances" with a lot more sureness and certainty than do most other governments. If state religion is what states believe about themselves and their relation to the deity, then the US is probably the most religious and pious state in the whole world. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/31/85)
First I write: >>Here it comes... the massive flame saying "how can you pick on the good >>'ol USA?!!!!" I'm not really. I never said that we were the evil of the >>universe, I merely meant to point out that our hands are not spotless. A >>simple assertion such as "we are not on the same moral plane" is >>ludicrous! So Larry (LaRue) Kolodney comes back with: >Be serious Charles. Nothing in the history of the United States >in this century compares with the outright genocide that occured in the >soviet union during the stalin era. > >Come on Charles, you can stop proving how "politically correct" you are. >You don't have to feel obliged to go overboard in fighting anti-soviet >hysteria by being equally blind in the opposite direction. I didn't say anything about us being "as bad", "worse" or even "better" than the soviets. I was, in fact, merely claiming that such value judgement have no point in the issue (which was that many foriegners don't like Americans). -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (08/01/85)
In article <1062@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >Be serious Charles. Nothing in the history of the United States >in this century compares with the outright genocide that occured in the >soviet union during the stalin era. > Perhaps nothing equals it. There may be a few things that compare. Selecting this century could bias the conclusions in favour of the US. The treatement of the Japanese during world war II was not very nice. NOTE: My own country of Canada is equally guilty on this count! >Surely we've had some serious blights on our history >(black slavery, indian genocide), but to compare the level of freedom today >in the U.S. with that in the USSR is doing a grave injustice to those >suffering in that country. > Yes there is injustice in the USSR, but a lot of the people there say that there is just no comparison with the injustice going on in the US. The problem is I don't think they know what is going on over here, (I guess I mean North America). The other half of the problem is that we don't really know what is going on over there! I think we're all pretty much on the same moral plane. It seems that whatever nation a person is born in is the greatest nation on Earth, and all the rest come second. It's called national chauvenism. >Both the quantity and quality of police state tactics in this country >pale by comparison to those used by the KGB. > > Speaking as a relatively independant observer, and one who actually favours free enterprise, etc. I have noted that the rumours I hear about the KGB, (and that is all they are, rumours), are very similar to the rumours I hear about the CIA and the many other "security" organisations in the US. None of these groups is likely to let you or I find out what is really going on! Consequently I suspect that your statement is a result of a slight bias of your own. Well, there's a lot of that going around and your probably in good company. Cheers, Fred Williams PS. Why did the US come down in favour of South African Whites in the UN recently? Is it because the communists are backing Angola? I would not want to be white,(which I am), and in South Africa at this time. Perhaps SA needs an Abe Lincoln?! Maybe the US could do with him back again too??
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/01/85)
> > > There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. . . . > Whether or not these attacks are acceptable is moot. > The point the sympathizers (of America-bashers) were > attempting to make deals with the sources of the > America-bashing behavior. We should not condone the > attacks, but we should attempt to determine why they > happen. If there is justification for the hate (not . . . > I don't believe we should become submissive, but we must > address the very real reasons why America is perceived > as a global leech, consuming the world's resources without > providing for those not American. . . > prosperity is dependent on the oppression of non-Americans. . . > have fueled these attributes with resources from other > countries. The U.S.S.R. does the same thing, but they > haven't done it as long, so exploited peoples are more > naive towards Marxism. If the U.S. would reverse its > foreign policies and assist non-Americans in establishing > true democracies (not these puppet fascist regimes who > serve American mulitinational corporate interests), we > would find America treated with respect and the Marxist > surge would subside. Let's show the world that democracy is > better through actions, not bogus rhetoric. (sorry for hacking away at the above comments, I left what I thought were representative comments) As a non-american I think the last poster has some good points. If the US would act more in accordance with the ideals that are put forward as part of the "american way of life" when dealing with their global neighbours then the US might get more respect and less hate. The US has and continues to support fascist regimes. Whether or not their actions were justifiable does the Iranian reaction to the US really surprise you when you consider the actions of the US backed Shah? The US also attacks legitimate democratic governments, as for example in Nicarauga. Here is a country living under a US backed dictator that has a revolution and then elections. Dozens of representatives from other countries and private representatives (including some from the US) attended these elections and described them as being reasonably democratic; but the US government reaction to all this is one of blatant hostility - politically, militarily and economically, then when Nicarauga turns to the soviets (as well as other countries) for help the US govt. acts outraged. What else could they be expected to do? It is would also make US claims of respect for law and order a little more credible if they hadn't decided to retroactively withdraw from the jurisdiction of the world court regarding matters in central america. At this point in time your government is about to send an icebreaker to Thule through the Northwest passage. Canada has claimed the passage as territorial waters for some time and the US disputes this. Ostensibly it is necessary because it will save $500,000 but it is difficult to believe that this insignificant (relative to the US defence budget) sum has suddenly become so important. Rather than negotiating with our government beforehand the US govt. just announces it is going through and Canada has nothing to say about it. Now it is only possible for your government to take this attitude because of the immense US military & economic strength, a sort of "might is right" attitude - now how friendly would you feel towards someone who treated you this way on a personal level? In addition the US people seem to lack a certain amount of control over and information about the actions of their government. While this is not peculiarily american by any means, the immense destructive power of the US makes it cause for a lot more concern among the rest of us than if the same situation holds in (say) Iceland. Lest you find this completely negative let me says I find many things about the US which are also admirable. You would however be a lot better neighbour if your government practiced what it preaches and tried to remember that it represents approximately only 5% of the global population. Constructive comments criticisms welcome. Flames to /dev/null. John Chapman -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/01/85)
>Todd Jones writes: > Americans are largely ignorant of the extent to which our > prosperity is dependent on the oppression of non-Americans. > We are taught to believe that hard work and ingenuity are > the forces that have propelled us to our status as world > leaders. While we have worked hard and are ingenious, we > have fueled these attributes with resources from other > countries. So what!! Oil went from 6 dollars a barrel to 30 dollars a barrel. Who the hell is exploiting who. Do you suppose that South Americans have no coffee to drink because we buy it all. Look around on your market's shelves, how many made in USA products do you see? From electronic consumer items to garbage can lids are all made almost entirely overseas by non-American corporations. If anyone is being exploited, it is we, the American public. Three hundred thousand auto and steel workers have lost their jobs as a result of this exploitation. Millions more are out of work because of imports and cheap illegal immigrant labor. Do you have any idea how many overseas jobs are provided by the American con- sumer, at the cost of American jobs? No I can bet you don't. So stop this insane rhetoric about the exploitation and oppression of the poor foreigner. What about Japan, they import 90% of their raw materials. Are they oppressing other countries? Do you believe as you do about the American worker that Japan is not where it is today because of hard work and ingenuity but simply because they oppress foreigners? ALL COUNTRIES IMPORT RAW MATERIALS!! But here is where the difference starts. It's knowing what to do with them AFTER you get them. For your information, it's been called yankee knowhow, American ingenuity, not oppression. I rest my case and find you guilty of ignorance and sentence you to purchase molybdenite from Africa in its worthless form and "oppress" it to molybdenum.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/02/85)
> William Swan writes: > (The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...) > >the instigators of that war to an early surrender, thereby avoiding tremendous > >bloodshed (on both sides) and total destruction of their nation and people. > > > Tony Wuersch writes: > The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? William Swan above used the word "instigators". The use of this word CAN be taken at its face value and nothing more. The lust for revenge does not have to enter into its meaning unless of course you want it to. Japan was on a clear and direct path for world domination, and millions or tens of millions died as a result of this, mostly Chinese civilians. The use of the word 'instigate' is historically correct irrespective of any other meaning one might wish attached to it. I'm replying simply to point out the above and am not advocating anything one way or the other concering the bomb.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/02/85)
The following statements by Mr. Sevener may in fact be a valid statement of why the rest of the world hates America; however, many of the statements are false, misleading, or incomplete. > There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world hates America. > These have nothing to do with "image" or irrational hate but history > and current facts. > For one thing, the rest of the world sees the 6% of the world represented > by Americans consuming over 50% of the world's resources. (this has probably > shifted somewhat lately but the basic imbalance remains) Incomplete: We also *produce* a big chunk of the world's goods. > Third World countries and even European countries look around and what > do they see? American corporations everywhere extracting their resources. Incomplete: Many of the multinationals are European companies (like Shell). False: Many of the Third World countries have nationalized holdings by American companies. (OPEC countries, for example.) > The current trade deficit doesn't change the control by American-based > corporations - what has changed is that these corporations begin to > manufacture overseas instead of in America so they can get cheap, > non-union labor. But the ownership and control of these corporations > is still predominately American. Incomplete: And in the process of getting "cheap, non-union labor" those corporations are providing employment to people on the edge of starvation. (The people have been on the edge of starvation in many of those places since before the U.S. was settled.) If I have to choose between putting a few comfortable American union workers out of jobs, or putting out of work someone in the Third World who is struggling to put food on the table, I know who *I* will side with. > Countries like Nicaragua have vivid remembrances of being occupied by > US Marines for years to protect the holdings of the United Fruit Company. Questionable and incomplete: I've looked through contemporary news accounts of the U.S. occupation of Nicaraugua, and you could argue either way as to the motivations of the U.S. You shouldn't state as hard fact something that is properly labelled as "one of several explanations". You also ignore that a civil war was going on in Nicaraugua between a number of criminal bunches; the thugs we backed were no worse than a lot of other thugs in the country at the time. > The Vietnamese remember that the US came in to help the French > retain Indochina as a French colony after World War II. False: The U.S. should have provided assistance to Ho Chi Minh after World War II against the French, but the most we did before the 1954 partition was sit around stupidly, unsure what to do. The U.S. offered assistance to the French at Dien Bien Phu, but we never followed through. > The Iranians remember that the CIA deposed the democratically elected > Iranian president, Mossadegh in favor of the Shah in 1954. Correct. > Now the South Africans notice that the Reagan administration has been > shipping the South African government arms- arms which they see > used against their own struggle to eliminate apartheid. The Reagan Administration is shipping the South African government arms? Or are American companies selling arms? > People in Western Europe (as contrasted with their governments) see > more nuclear weapons being crammed down their throats to suit > American views of the nuclear balance - while Europeans see themselves > as most likely to be the first to be fried if such weapons were ever used. > > Over 100 countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact to voluntarily > agree not to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet as part of that > agreement, the Soviet Union and U.S. agreed to limit their own nuclear > weapons. They haven't -- instead they have doubled their nuclear arsenals > in the last decade. If the superpowers decide to have a nuclear war > the whole world would pay the cost if the Nuclear Winter effect is valid. > Regardless the whole world would pay the cost of massive poisoning of > the whole ecosphere. Misleading: the number of warheads have increased significantly; the total yield of all those warheads has declined by 30%. Nuclear Winter theory is a classic example of "draw the curve, then plot the points". There are a great many assumptions made in the theory which are clearly false. See the article on the subject in the recent issue of Reason. > The fact that the rest of the world could be wiped out due to > either an American or Soviet unilateral decision to launch > a nuclear attack does not make either country well-loved. > > tim sevener whuxl!orb Bunk. There are big chunks of the world where the only way they will know a nuclear war has happened is because the shipments of food and guns from the West will stop.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/04/85)
> Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw > > William Swan > > <301@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP > > [The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...] the instigators of that war to an > > early surrender, thereby avoiding tremendous bloodshed (on both sides) > > and total destruction of their nation and people. > The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? > ........................................................ > But revenge is not a sufficient excuse for the cold-blooded murder of > civilians. The US knew it was on the verge of victory. It could > have considered the tradeoffs in lives from one strategy or another, > especially civilian lives. The historical record shows no such niceties > in the decision(s) to drop the bombs. Tony ignores three facts. 1. Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese port bombed by Americans. 2. World War was a TOTAL war, which means (for sure in Japanese case) that the ENTIRE countries were at war, not just an easy to isolate groups of soldiers. Bombing cities was a method to diminish the supply of enemy's war material. The noncombat population was predominantly working for the war machine. 3. Japanese leaders were promising to figth to the bitter (possibly very bitter) end. The suicidal tactics of Japanese made this promise credible. Now, change scale of the human destruction from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to main islands of Japan. Moreover, I do not by the argument which in practice says: "Instead of killing 100,000 innocent civilians we could kill 300,000 soldiers." As I pointed out, in a total war the civilians are not any more innocent than the combatting conscripts. All of them are part of the war machine, not of their making perhaps, but > I read somewhere that the second bomb was dropped to see if it would work, > since it was more experimental (used plutonium instead of uranium) than > the first bomb. Dropping it on a civilian population served two purposes > at once, I guess. It was dropped on Nagasaki. The second bomb was not > dropped because the Japanese had decided to continue fighting. > > Most arguments about the morality of the "bomb" focus only on the first > one. > This is an ahistorical thinking. Now we know that the nuclear bomb is more nasty than the conventional one: radiation, cancer etc. Still, what makes nukes really scary because of rockets which can spread them everywhere in half an hour. In 1945 thet looked just more efficient: lots of cities were leveled with the ground with the use of conventional bombs or even artilery. Many times more Japanese were killed in conventional bombings than in nuclear ones. > > It was most unfortunate that it [atomic bomb] was used, but consider > > ALL the circumstances before you start getting judgemental. This > > particular circumstance will never arise again. > > William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill > > War is war, and it's hell, and so are atrocities. The dropping of the > atomic bomb was just more effective than the concentration camps, since > we still have it around today. > > It's amusing how the US tries to show a crazed skull's face to its enemies and > a caring, fatherly "we are the world -- I did it for the best of reasons" face > to the rest of us. All governments do this to some degree, but I think the > US believes it can persuade people that it acts as a moral actor and > conquers the contradictions of "circumstances" with a lot more sureness > and certainty than do most other governments. > > If state religion is what states believe about themselves and their > relation to the deity, then the US is probably the most religious and > pious state in the whole world. > Tony Wuersch A better example of worshiping the state one can find in USSR. If you know Russian, you would see that Pravda contains a. hossannas to the wisdom of the Party, b. diatribes agains imperialism (their Satan), c. description of cases were people don't sufficiently follow wisdom of the Party. More serious, Tony again ignores the realities of war. Americans didn't know for example how many attrocities Japanese would commit in an extra week of the war (once they killed 200,000 in Nankin in three days). This were not conditions to invite the enemy to the test site and then chat, whether it wouldn't be better to surrender. Piotr Berman
bill@persci.UUCP (08/04/85)
In article <10686@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Russia has never USED a nuclear weapon to kill anybody, >> America has. Same moral plane? It's much to complecated. >You're right they haven't yet. They have other ways that get much less atten- >ion. >I could never condone the use of nuclear weapons on anyone. But in times of >total global war, why should anyone think that sane and rational actions will >always prevail. The fact that the war was ended in a mad flash of death in >no way minimizes the fact that the start of such a war was just as insane and >irrational as the way it ended. And as history tells it, we had little to >do with its beginning and much to do with its ending. Don't forget that many lives, BOTH Japanese and American, were saved by the use of a completely new, incomprehensibly powerful secret weapon, which forced the instigators of that war to an early surrender, thereby avoiding tremendous bloodshed (on both sides) and total destruction of their nation and people. Yes, I know they were mainly civilians who died in those attacks, and that they are mainly civilians who still live with the legacy of the Bomb. Remember who started the war, and the many innocent American families who suffered the loss of their sons, because of an alien imperialist aggressor. Also remember the aid given to the unfortunates by the victors. It's often been said that we should have dropped the bomb on Fuji instead of a populace. Consider that the bomb was not considered reliable, that there was a fair chance that it might not explode if dropped (like so many conventional bombs). A failure in that attempt would have only strengthened their resolve, forcing us into even more drastic actions, resulting in the deaths of even more human beings than if it had never been dropped. (The attempt, failed, would have made us look *very* weak and without resolve in Japanese eyes. It would have actually encouraged them: 1. We have a most unreliable superweapon. 2. We don't have the resolve to actually use it.) It was most unfortunate that it was used, but consider ALL the circumstances before you start getting judgemental. This particular circumstance will never arise again. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/05/85)
Fred Williams of Canada writes: > Things like > acid rain come over that border and all the US seems to think is, > "Whew, we got rid of that nasty stuff." This is the attitude that > probably hurts the US the most. You, like everybody else, are your > own worst enemies. > Please understand that I am not trying just to bash on America. > I am hoping that some of you guys down their will do a little > thinking and maybe find some ways to improve yourselves. It might > make life a little easier for some of your friends. > > Cheers, Fred Williams I agree, something has to be done about acid rain not just in Canada and the US but the world over. I believe Canada has some rather heavy industries up there, have they figured out what to do about the acid rain their industry creates? It would help if the Canadian and American governments pooled their mental resources and came up with a viable solution. The reason I stress a joint venture is because our two economies are intimately linked and jobs are created on both sides of the border as a result of all types of industry wether they be heavy and polluting or light and clean. Of course we contribute more to acid rain because of more of that type of industry, so we should be willing to invest proportionately more than Canada. Just a thought.
bill@persci.UUCP (08/06/85)
In article <283@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >(The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...) >>the instigators of that war to an early surrender, [...] > >The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? I am sorry if this sounded like my sentiment. It is not. It was, however, the general sentiment in the US at the close of the war from what I have gathered from those who were around at the time, and it was that sentiment that I was attempting to express. >The historical account of the war shows the same lust for revenge as >Mr. White had in his article forty years later. > >But revenge is not a sufficient excuse for the cold-blooded murder of >civilians. I agree. We can add Dresden to our list, also. >The US knew it was on the verge of victory. It could >have considered the tradeoffs in lives from one strategy or another, >especially civilian lives. The historical record shows no such niceties >in the decision(s) to drop the bombs. This is partially true. We were on the verge of victory. We were facing a massive invasion planned, as I recall, for November. Some time shortly before that, Russia was due to declare war on Japan, which, it was hoped, would cause the Japanese defense to immediately collapse. On this basis, it appears that the decision to drop the bomb WAS at least partially due to a desire to "impress" the Soviets. (I learned this part of it just this past weekend..) Yet, the war cabinet of Japan had scorned our demand for surrender, even though the result was inevitable. It was unthinkable for them to surrender. Dropping the two bombs finally forced the Emperor to override his cabinet and declare that they must surrender, to save his people. >>It's often been said that we should have dropped the bomb on Fuji instead of >>a populace. Consider that the bomb was not considered reliable, that there was >>a fair chance that it might not explode if dropped (like so many conventional >>bombs). A failure in that attempt would have only strengthened their resolve, >>forcing us into even more drastic actions, resulting in the deaths of even >>more human beings than if it had never been dropped. (The attempt, failed, >>would have made us look *very* weak and without resolve in Japanese eyes. It >>would have actually encouraged them: 1. We have a most unreliable superweapon. >>2. We don't have the resolve to actually use it.) > >If it worked, more than 100,000 lives would be saved. If it failed, then >maybe a bomb would end up being dropped anyhow, thereby not saving 100,000 >lives. That's better than just dropping the bomb. In fact, the Hiroshima bomb did malfunction. Studies have shown that only about one kilo of the 10 to 30 in the bomb actually fissioned. Remember, too, that we had no assembly-line for the bombs, and in fact could have made *very* few, not enough to really conduct a war with. Remember too that the American leaders at the time were faced with expending a number of "enemy" lives (albeit civilians, though that meant very little in that war) in the hope first of saving a (greater, although I am sure that didn't really matter) number of American lives, and only secondarily of saving enemy lives. >I read somewhere that the second bomb was dropped to see if it would work, >since it was more experimental (used plutonium instead of uranium) than >the first bomb. Dropping it on a civilian population served two purposes >at once, I guess. It was dropped on Nagasaki. The second bomb was not >dropped because the Japanese had decided to continue fighting. Yet, if they had surrendered the second bomb would not have been dropped. Remember that we had already agreed to the one main condition they demanded in surrender "negotiations", which was the preservation of the office of the Emperor. >Most arguments about the morality of the "bomb" focus only on the first >one. >>It was most unfortunate that it was used, but consider ALL the circumstances >>before you start getting judgemental. This particular circumstance will never >>arise again. >War is war, and it's hell, and so are atrocities. The dropping of the >atomic bomb was just more effective than the concentration camps, since >we still have it around today. > >It's amusing how the US tries to show a crazed skull's face to its enemies and >a caring, fatherly "we are the world -- I did it for the best of reasons" face >to the rest of us. All governments do this to some degree, but I think the >US believes it can persuade people that it acts as a moral actor and >conquers the contradictions of "circumstances" with a lot more sureness >and certainty than do most other governments. > >If state religion is what states believe about themselves and their >relation to the deity, then the US is probably the most religious and >pious state in the whole world. >Tony Wuersch -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/06/85)
In article <1659@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >> > Speaking as a relatively independant observer, and one who >actually favours free enterprise, etc. I have noted that the rumours >I hear about the KGB, (and that is all they are, rumours), are very >similar to the rumours I hear about the CIA and the many other >"security" organisations in the US. None of these groups is likely >to let you or I find out what is really going on! Consequently I >suspect that your statement is a result of a slight bias of your own. >Well, there's a lot of that going around and your probably in good >company. > >Cheers, Fred Williams > I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. The activities of the U.S. govt. are almost all aboveboard, while almost everything that the Soviet govt. does is secret. We have a freedom of information act, and a relatively free press. Can you imagine anything like the Church committe hearings on CIA activity in the USSR? There is no independent human rights group that ever thinks to compare Soviet Human rights abuses with those in the U.S. We do know what goes on in the S.U. We [those who study the S.U.] know that the KGB is a veritable Mafia in that country. It is an idependent power base that gives its head much influence. This is not so true now as it was in the early 50's however. Nevertheless, people in the USSR live in TERROR of the KGB. That cannot be said for any police organization in the US (with perhaps a few exceptions in the deep south?). I am not blind to the faults of the U.S. I am highly critical of U.S. society and govt. policy. However I've seen to many communists (including personal acquaintances) make the mistake of believing that one cannot criticize the USSR without seeming like an apologist for everything bad in the US. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
bill@persci.UUCP (08/06/85)
>> >(The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...) >> >the instigators of that war to an early surrender[...] >> The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? >William Swan above used the word "instigators". The use of this word CAN be >taken at its face value and nothing more. I meant "initiators", not "instigators". Sorry, wrong word (and it was not intended to be pejorative.. ..if *THAT*'s the right word... :-). -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/07/85)
> ..................... > Yes there is injustice in the USSR, but a lot of the people there > say that there is just no comparison with the injustice going on in > the US. The problem is I don't think they know what is going on over > here, (I guess I mean North America). .............. > > Speaking as a relatively independant observer, and one who > actually favours free enterprise, etc. I have noted that the rumours > I hear about the KGB, (and that is all they are, rumours), are very > similar to the rumours I hear about the CIA and the many other .......... > > Cheers, Fred Williams > I would like to provide just two examples of differences between USSR and USA which are not rumors: a. If Americans know a little about USSR then this is the result of their lack of interest. An excursion to an academic library or a decent book- store would supply anyone with plenty of material. In USSR the goverment carefully controls the content of books, journals and libraries. I can read Pravda here (and I do), I cannot read any noncommunist newspaper in USSR (I learned it from Russians when I was there). b. The rigths of an American citizen are specified in the bill of rights. The Soviet Constitution lists rights, then duties like work, cooperation with the law enforcement by all available means, protecting the enviroment, military service, increasing the friendship between nations etc. Subsequently, it states that utilization of rights and freedom is linked with the fullfilment of duties. Then what rights do you deserve if you haven't increase the friendship between the nations (or, more realistically, you haven't said everything to KGB about the political views of your friends). R. Namreb
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (08/07/85)
In article <1679@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > Tony ignores three facts. > 1. Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese port bombed by Americans. > 2. World War was a TOTAL war, which means (for sure in Japanese case) > that the ENTIRE countries were at war, not just an easy to isolate > groups of soldiers. Bombing cities was a method to diminish the > supply of enemy's war material. The noncombat population was > predominantly working for the war machine. > 3. Japanese leaders were promising to figth to the bitter (possibly > very bitter) end. The suicidal tactics of Japanese made this > promise credible. Now, change scale of the human destruction > from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to main islands of Japan. I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have still been open. The atom bomb was a whole new way to wage war. It would have been better to show the Japanese what they would be up against. Then, if they still wanted to continue, OK, what could you do? It is true that the numbers of people killed were probably fewer than if the war had dragged on, but it is possible that even these people need not have been killed. Now do people think that without the examples of that war, would we have had nuclear war after WW2? Cheers, Fred Williams
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/09/85)
> In article <1679@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > > > Tony ignores three facts. > > 1. Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese port bombed by Americans. > > 2. World War was a TOTAL war, which means (for sure in Japanese case) > > that the ENTIRE countries were at war, not just an easy to isolate > > groups of soldiers. Bombing cities was a method to diminish the > > supply of enemy's war material. The noncombat population was > > predominantly working for the war machine. But they had effectively already been beaten when the first bomb was dropped and had been beaten for sure afterwards so why Nagasaki? > > 3. Japanese leaders were promising to figth to the bitter (possibly > > very bitter) end. The suicidal tactics of Japanese made this > > promise credible. Now, change scale of the human destruction > > from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to main islands of Japan. > > I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on > an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of > getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have > still been open. > The atom bomb was a whole new way to wage war. It would have been > better to show the Japanese what they would be up against. Then, if > they still wanted to continue, OK, what could you do? > It is true that the numbers of people killed were probably fewer > than if the war had dragged on, but it is possible that even these > people need not have been killed. > I too think a demonstration would have been worth trying. I watched a documentary the other night where I learned two (at least) new bits of information. 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. 2. targeting strategy for the bomb was begun two years before it was actually dropped. Originally they weren't sure the bomb would work and so wanted to drop it on a japanese naval harbour so that if it failed the japanese would have a much harder time recovering it. It was only after they were confident the bomb would work that the target was switched to a civilian city. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/09/85)
> In article <1659@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > >> > > Speaking as a relatively independant observer, and one who > >actually favours free enterprise, etc. I have noted that the rumours > >I hear about the KGB, (and that is all they are, rumours), are very > >similar to the rumours I hear about the CIA and the many other > >"security" organisations in the US. None of these groups is likely > >to let you or I find out what is really going on! Consequently I > >suspect that your statement is a result of a slight bias of your own. > >Well, there's a lot of that going around and your probably in good > >company. > > > >Cheers, Fred Williams > > > > > I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. The activities of the U.S. govt. are Well as Fred said he is relatively independant/unbiased..... > almost all aboveboard, while almost everything that the Soviet govt. does is That is probably true if you happen to actually live in the states but don't forget all those people who get tortured/killed/jailed/"disappeared" in dictatorships primarily sponsored by the US. Also try and remember things like the US bombing of Cambodia while the US public was fed lies. > secret. We have a freedom of information act, and a relatively free press. I can see where you might believe that. Let me strongly recommend a two volume set of books by Noam Chomsky (yes, that Chomsky) with, as I recall, the title "The Political Economy of Freedom"; one book focusses on South America and the other on Southeast Asia - both are primarily concerned with involvement by the "west" and in particular the veracity, or lack thereof, of the press. > Can you imagine anything like the Church committe hearings on CIA activity in > the USSR? > There is no independent human rights group that ever thinks to compare > Soviet Human rights abuses with those in the U.S. Seems to me Amnesty International does just that if you're willing to include the complaints they make against US backed dictatorships. > > We do know what goes on in the S.U. We [those who study the S.U.] know that > the KGB is a veritable Mafia in that country. It is an idependent power base > that gives its head much influence. This is not so true now as it was in the > early 50's however. Nevertheless, people in the USSR live in TERROR of the > KGB. That cannot be said for any police organization in the US (with perhaps > a few exceptions in the deep south?). > > I am not blind to the faults of the U.S. I am highly critical of U.S. society > and govt. policy. However I've seen to many communists (including personal > acquaintances) make the mistake of believing that one cannot criticize the > USSR without seeming like an apologist for everything bad in the US. > Yes but too many americans make the converse mistake that because the US does good it excuses the bad things done - or that as long as they don't do quite as many bad things as the USSR then their ok. The arguments are usually not presented in this way but that is what they amount too. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (08/10/85)
In article <260@SCIRTP.UUCP> Todd Jones writes: > ... we must > address the very real reasons why America is perceived > as a global leech ... > Americans are largely ignorant of the extent to which our > prosperity is dependent on the oppression of non-Americans. Undoubtedly the West is prosperous and the Third World is not. Are we rich BECAUSE they are poor? Those who think so point to past sins of colonialism and the exploitative nature of North-South economic transactions in the present. Now it is true that the various brands of colonialism have made the Third World poorer (although there are exceptions). But are they the source of Western prosperity, past or present? If so, how did Norway and Switzerland become rich countries in the last 100 years? How come Japan's economic takeoff began AFTER their imperialist phase has ended? Economics is not not a zero-sum game. An excellent collection of case histories on prosperity and stagnation can be found in 'Cities and the Wealth of Nations' by Jane Jacobs. This quote is from the chapter 'Transactions of Decline': 'Successful imperialism wins wealth. Yet, historically, successful empires such as Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, have not remained rich. Indeed, it seems to be the fate of empires to become too poor to sustain the very costs of empire. The longer an empire holds together, the poorer and more economically backward it tends to become. [ ... ] Yet if imperialism wins wealth for imperial powers, as it undoubtedly does, how can this be? A paradox.' 'I am going to argue that the very policies and transactions that are necessary to win, hold and exploit an empire ... lead to their stagnation and decay. Imperial decline is built right into imperial success. The policies and transactions that make the decline of empires inevitable are all killers of city economies. They fall into three main groups: prolonged an unremitting military production; prolonged and unremitting subsidies to poor regions; heavy promotion of trade between advanced and backward economies.' The case histories deal with Uruguay, Iran, Tennessee, Japan, Ghana and others. One of the virtues of the book is the good clean fun Jacobs is having at the expense of professional economists. Lots of facts, few political axes to grind. ----- Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
seshadr@utai.UUCP (Ven Seshadri) (08/12/85)
> 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if > the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending > on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing > 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not > true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. Just a point: General MacArthur estimated that a conventional assault on the Japanese islands would result in the deaths of 1,000,000 American soldiers (my source is the TV series "American Caesar"). Note that this count includes ONLY American servicemen. Remember that there would also be approximately 500,000 British troops involved in the invasion (source: "Triumph and Tragedy" by Winston Churchill) as well as a large number of troops from the Soviet Union. Thus I think that your claim of trading 50,000 American lives for 200,000 Japanese lives is somewhat incorrect. Ven Seshadri University of Toronto Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/13/85)
. . . > I would like to provide just two examples of differences between USSR and USA > which are not rumors: > a. If Americans know a little about USSR then this is the result of their > lack of interest. An excursion to an academic library or a decent book- > store would supply anyone with plenty of material. In USSR the goverment > carefully controls the content of books, journals and libraries. I can > read Pravda here (and I do), I cannot read any noncommunist newspaper > in USSR (I learned it from Russians when I was there). This is third hand but: my father (a trust officer) had a client who travelled frequently in the USSR who told him that he had approached a woman on a park bench in Moscow who was reading.... TIME! She said there was no problem getting copies to read as it was not restricted. > b. The rigths of an American citizen are specified in the bill of rights. > The Soviet Constitution lists rights, then duties like work, cooperation > with the law enforcement by all available means, protecting the enviroment, > military service, increasing the friendship between nations etc. > Subsequently, it states that utilization of rights and freedom is linked > with the fullfilment of duties. Perhaps their implementation isn't all you desire but the idea that rights are linked to the fulfillment of duties hardly originates with the USSR nor is it (I think) all that objectionable. > Then what rights do you deserve if you haven't increase the friendship > between the nations (or, more realistically, you haven't said everything > to KGB about the political views of your friends). > > R. Namreb -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
emil@rochester.UUCP (Emil Rainero) (08/13/85)
> I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on >an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of >getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have >still been open. > The atom bomb was a whole new way to wage war. It would have been >better to show the Japanese what they would be up against. Then, if >they still wanted to continue, OK, what could you do? > It is true that the numbers of people killed were probably fewer >than if the war had dragged on, but it is possible that even these >people need not have been killed. > > Now do people think that without the examples of that war, would >we have had nuclear war after WW2? > >Cheers, Fred Williams I think there was a problem producing material for more than two bombs. I heard somewhere about it taking another year to get enough the make additional bombs. This info was a bit encrusted in the space between my ears, so I may be way off. Emil Rainero UUCP: (..!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!emil) ARPA: emil@rochester.arpa USmail: Emil Rainero, Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Phone: Office: (716) 275-5365 Home: (716) 424-5016
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/15/85)
> > I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on > >an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of > >getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have > >still been open. Good idea Fred. > I think there was a problem producing material for more than two > bombs. I heard somewhere about it taking another year to get enough the > make additional bombs. This info was a bit encrusted in the space between > my ears, so I may be way off. My understanding was that a third bomb, and subsequent bombs, were being prepared for detonation above another Japanese city when Japan surrendered. I read in a recent Newsweek that Oppenheimer promised 16 nuclear weapons could be readied within a very short time frame. -todd jones
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (08/16/85)
> > 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if > > the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending > > on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing > > 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not > > true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. > > Just a point: General MacArthur estimated that a conventional assault > on the Japanese islands would result in the deaths of 1,000,000 American > soldiers (my source is the TV series "American Caesar"). Note that this > count includes ONLY American servicemen. Remember that there would also be > approximately 500,000 British troops involved in the invasion (source: > "Triumph and Tragedy" by Winston Churchill) as well as a large number of > troops from the Soviet Union. Thus I think that your claim of trading > 50,000 American lives for 200,000 Japanese lives is somewhat incorrect. > > > Ven Seshadri > University of Toronto > Artificial Intelligence Laboratory My source was an american historian (sorry, can't remember his name) who was being interviewed by the CBC. His point was that while there were people (he didn't mention MacArthur by name) who believed that >>200,000 lives would be lost, the historical record shows the opinion of the Joint Chiefs at the time to be what I said originally. If you want to argue whose numbers are correct call CBC, find out who the guy was and talk to him - not me; I think his comments are sufficient reason to believe that things were not quite so cut and dried as we are usually led to believe. -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/17/85)
> I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on > an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of > getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have > still been open. They had never dropped a bomb. They didn't even know if it would work, and if it did, whether the backup would (the two bombs had completely different designs). They only had the 2 bombs and weren't prepared to produce them in quantity quickly. Thus, they weren't even sure if they had the option of the real thing later. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian werewolf) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/21/85)
> > > 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if > > > the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending > > > on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing > > > 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not > > > true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. Irrespective of how many American lives would have been lost in an invasion, it's highly likely that a good deal more than 200,000 japanese lives would have been lost. If nothing else there is no doubt in my mind that the fire- bombing of Tokyo would have continued and spread to other cities. Japanese cities would burn much more impressively than German ones, due to the rice- paper construction of many of the houses. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/22/85)
> In article <1679@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > > > > > Tony ignores three facts. > > > 1. Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese port bombed by Americans. > > > 2. World War was a TOTAL war, which means (for sure in Japanese case) > > > that the ENTIRE countries were at war, not just an easy to isolate > > > groups of soldiers. Bombing cities was a method to diminish the > > > supply of enemy's war material. The noncombat population was > > > predominantly working for the war machine. > > > But they had effectively already been beaten when the first bomb > > was dropped and had been beaten for sure afterwards so why Nagasaki? > > > > > 3. Japanese leaders were promising to figth to the bitter (possibly > > > very bitter) end. The suicidal tactics of Japanese made this > > > promise credible. Now, change scale of the human destruction > > > from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to main islands of Japan. > > > > I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on > > an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of > > getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have > > still been open. > > The atom bomb was a whole new way to wage war. It would have been > > better to show the Japanese what they would be up against. Then, if > > they still wanted to continue, OK, what could you do? > > It is true that the numbers of people killed were probably fewer > > than if the war had dragged on, but it is possible that even these > > people need not have been killed. > > > I too think a demonstration would have been worth trying. I watched > documentary the other night where I learned two (at least) new bits > information. > apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if > the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending > on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing > 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not > true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. > targeting strategy for the bomb was begun two years before it was > actually dropped. Originally they weren't sure the bomb would work > and so wanted to drop it on a japanese naval harbour so that if > it failed the japanese would have a much harder time recovering it. > It was only after they were confident the bomb would work that > the target was switched to a civilian city. > > John Chapman > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman War arithmetic is a difficult bussiness. 1. John quotes US staff estimate that 50,000 Americans would be dead. However, the estimate of Japanese deaths was not there. Taking previous battles as the analogy, there would be many times more of those: Americans were by far superior in fire power, Japanese were usually killed in artillery barrages and aerial bombings. For sure, more than 200,000 casualties should be expected. 2. The fact that estimate of Japanese casualtes was not quoted, reflects the style of thinking of the time of war. THEY DID NOT MATTER that much. The cruelty of war took their toll also in the mind of American generals. It is good that ours is more compassionate time, but we should also understand the minds of people during the war. 3. My point is that humanity inevitably erodes during a war, and we should not judge the participants as easily as we sometimes do. However, this is yet another reason to avoid any military confrontation between the powers, be it "limited" or "conventional". Once the spiral of death and revenge, or "loosing human effectives and destroing manpower" is started, no one knows where it would stop. Piotr Berman
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/22/85)
> . > . > . > > I would like to provide just two examples of differences between USSR and USA > > which are not rumors: > > a. If Americans know a little about USSR then this is the result of their > > lack of interest. An excursion to an academic library or a decent book- > > store would supply anyone with plenty of material. In USSR the goverment > > carefully controls the content of books, journals and libraries. I can > > read Pravda here (and I do), I cannot read any noncommunist newspaper > > in USSR (I learned it from Russians when I was there). > > This is third hand but: my father (a trust officer) had a client who > travelled frequently in the USSR who told him that he had approached > a woman on a park bench in Moscow who was reading.... TIME! She said > there was no problem getting copies to read as it was not restricted. > > > b. The rigths of an American citizen are specified in the bill of rights.The > > Soviet Constitution lists rights, then duties like work, cooperation with> > the law enforcement by all available means, protecting the enviroment, > > military service, increasing the friendship between nations etc. > > Subsequently, it states that utilization of rights and freedom is linked > > with the fullfilment of duties. > > Perhaps their implementation isn't all you desire but the idea that rights > are linked to the fulfillment of duties hardly originates with the USSR nor > is it (I think) all that objectionable. > > > P. Berman > -- > > John Chapman > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman > John finds the idea of linking rights and duties not all that objectionable. I hoped that I was clear enough: COOPERATING WITH KGB (by all available means) IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!!! Do you want your freedom of speech being linked to the quality of your reporting on your friends whenever their utter an "anti-American" statement? Apropos freedom of information in USSR: there is none. The quoted woman for sure belonged to a priviliged institution (even when the public must not be informed, somebody has no know something). I can easily believe that the woman claimed that TIME is not restricted. The best bet is that the woman was a journalist. One of the duties of journalists is to claim that censorship doesn't exists. A person from another priviliged institution would do the same. I think that I understand you John. It is difficult to imagine what is normal in a communist country. Being from East, I was shocked here as well. Example: FBI nailed many gangs by tapping their telephones. WHAT? In my part of the world nobody would tell you by phone things that could incriminate him. If you talk by phone, you feel there like if you would talk in a crowded place: you KNOW that other can listen to it. For an American, this is paranoia, for a Soviet, Polish etc. this is the way of life. Piotr Berman
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/22/85)
In article <2371@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: >> > 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if >> > the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons. Depending >> > on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing >> > 200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not >> > true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb. >> >> Just a point: General MacArthur estimated that a conventional assault >> on the Japanese islands would result in the deaths of 1,000,000 American >> soldiers (my source is the TV series "American Caesar"). Note that this >> count includes ONLY American servicemen. Remember that there would also be >> approximately 500,000 British troops involved in the invasion (source: >> "Triumph and Tragedy" by Winston Churchill) as well as a large number of >> troops from the Soviet Union. Thus I think that your claim of trading >> 50,000 American lives for 200,000 Japanese lives is somewhat incorrect. >> >> >> Ven Seshadri >> University of Toronto >> Artificial Intelligence Laboratory > >My source was an american historian (sorry, can't remember his name) who >was being interviewed by the CBC. His point was that while there were >people (he didn't mention MacArthur by name) who believed that >>200,000 >lives would be lost, the historical record shows the opinion of the >Joint Chiefs at the time to be what I said originally. If you want to >argue whose numbers are correct call CBC, find out who the guy was and >talk to him - not me; I think his comments are sufficient reason to >believe that things were not quite so cut and dried as we are usually >led to believe. > American casualties on Okinowa (sp) were about 77,000. Over 122,000 Japanese soldiers died in the battle, many by committing suicide. Given that there were 'only' 122,000 soldiers on the island, vs. anywhere from 2-4 million regulars plus 5-10 million militia on the four main islands, it is easy to see where people get the figure of a million American casualties. Craig Anderson >-- > > John Chapman > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman > > Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me > and they may not even be mine.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/22/85)
Sorry, Peter, but they HAD dropped the bomb before H and N. Take a look at what happened in April 1945 in New Mexico. Ok, the bomb was set off in a tower, but it went off. One hell of a lot of people on the West coast knew we had the bomb after the explosion. It was seen over a rather large area. Therefore, we knew that the idea would work, but, we did not know if the detonation device in the bomb would work. Remember, the bomb over Nag. was set to go off at a given altitude. This was the part they were uncertain about. If the bomb had been set to go off on impact, the area of destruction would have been much smaller. Thus, if the bomb had been dropped over water as a demo, the detonation device had failed, the bomb goes under water and either does not explode or finally does, all that would happen would be a large water spout, not too convincing to observers. There were a total of four bombs produced at that time. The first one was tested in New Mexico, the second dropped on Nag., the third (and different type of bomb) was dropped on Hiro. (not the prime target by the way, Hiro. being, at the time, a large center of christians in Japan), and the fourth was destined for another, as yet unnamed, target. What with all of our hindsight, it is very easy to now second guess the thinking of 40 years ago. I do it all the time when the Mets lose a ballgame. The major consideration in discussing past events is that, unless one of us had a direct involvement in a decision, we should not be laying a guilt trip on ourselves. What we should be doing is learning if we feel a mistake was made by those who preceded us and try not to repeat those mistakes. T. C. Wheeler
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/25/85)
> This is third hand but: my father (a trust officer) had a client who > travelled frequently in the USSR who told him that he had approached > a woman on a park bench in Moscow who was reading.... TIME! She said > there was no problem getting copies to read as it was not restricted. > > John Chapman > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman > > Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me It is not restricted to Party members with access to the special stores maintained by the government for the elite (there is a Russian word for these stores, but it slips my mind at the moment). These people are regarded as being able to handle western news and are in fact encouraged to follow it since they are the ones in charge of anti-US operations, etc.--sort of a "know the enemy" deal. Ordinary Russians cannot get it. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/27/85)
>/* Written 9:07 am Aug 22, 1985 by tw8023@pyuxii in ISM780B:net.politics */ >... >the third (and different >type of bomb) was dropped on Hiro. (not the prime target by the way, >Hiro. being, at the time, a large center of christians in Japan) Could you say some more about the relevance of religion to the targeting of atomic weapons in Japan? -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/29/85)
What Tony Wuersch ignores in trying to deny the unique significance of emigration from Cuba is that 10% of Cuba's entire population has left since Castro came to power, the highest proportion in all of Latin America. But statistics aren't the only indicator: it's fairly easy to differentiate between large emigrations like Mexicans to the US Southwest and Cubans to the US & Spain as to cause & motive, & thus identify the unique character of flight from Cuba. Ron Rizzo
gary@ISM780.UUCP (08/29/85)
--------
Re:
The first one was tested
in New Mexico, the second dropped on Nag., the third (and different
type of bomb) was dropped on Hiro. (not the prime target by the way,
Hiro. being, at the time, a large center of christians in Japan), and
the fourth was destined for another, as yet unnamed, target.
Minor correction: The second bomb was dropped on Hiroshima;
the third (plutonium type) bomb was dropped on Nagasaki,
(whose populace I believe did include a large proportion
of christians).
Gary Swift, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp., Santa Monica, Ca., (213) 453 8649
{decvax!cca | yale | bbncca | allegra | cbosgd | ihnp4}!ima!ism780!garybob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (08/30/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <1548@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >What Tony Wuersch ignores in trying to deny the unique significance >of emigration from Cuba is that 10% of Cuba's entire population >has left since Castro came to power, the highest proportion in >all of Latin America. > >But statistics aren't the only indicator: it's fairly easy to >differentiate between large emigrations like Mexicans to the US >Southwest and Cubans to the US & Spain as to cause & motive, >& thus identify the unique character of flight from Cuba. > > Ron Rizzo This sort of statistic is in fact incredibly misleading. Before Castro came to power, Cubans were not ALLOWED to come to the US because of immigration quotas. After they became refugees from communist dictatorship instead of economic refugees, the quotas were dropped completely. Exactly what criteria one use to fairly easily differentiate Mexican and Cuban flight? Bob Weiler.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/30/85)
In article <1548@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >What Tony Wuersch ignores in trying to deny the unique significance >of emigration from Cuba is that 10% of Cuba's entire population >has left since Castro came to power, the highest proportion in >all of Latin America. > >But statistics aren't the only indicator: it's fairly easy to >differentiate between large emigrations like Mexicans to the US >Southwest and Cubans to the US & Spain as to cause & motive, >& thus identify the unique character of flight from Cuba. > > Ron Rizzo A born-again counterrevolutionary has spoken again. When did most of these people leave Cuba? Did they have any problems leaving? I'll bet they left at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, just as Tories (lots) left the USA and French (all) left Algeria. If they left then, they also had little problem leaving (aside from problems associated with the mood of panic at the time -- you can't expect a new regime to be an efficient emigration-cum-travel agency too --). If a significant minority of Cubans (remember, the number is 10%) decide they can't afford to wait and see if a revolution helps them or hurts them (and why should they wait if they were part of the groups the revolution was made against?), they leave. And the Cuban government didn't restrain them from exercising their choice. After the first big emigration, how much is left, Ron? I don't know, but I don't think much. 10% for a small country is not a whole lot. What's so unique about that? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/09/85)
> >[Ron Rizzo] > >What Tony Wuersch ignores in trying to deny the unique significance > >of emigration from Cuba is that 10% of Cuba's entire population > >has left since Castro came to power, the highest proportion in > >all of Latin America. > > > >But statistics aren't the only indicator: it's fairly easy to > >differentiate between large emigrations like Mexicans to the US > >Southwest and Cubans to the US & Spain as to cause & motive, > >& thus identify the unique character of flight from Cuba. ------- > [Tony Wuersch] > A born-again counterrevolutionary has spoken again. When did most > of these people leave Cuba? Did they have any problems leaving? > > I'll bet they left at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, just > as Tories (lots) left the USA and French (all) left Algeria. If they > left then, they also had little problem leaving (aside from problems > associated with the mood of panic at the time -- you can't expect a > new regime to be an efficient emigration-cum-travel agency too --). > > If a significant minority of Cubans (remember, the number is 10%) > decide they can't afford to wait and see if a revolution helps them > or hurts them (and why should they wait if they were part of the groups > the revolution was made against?), they leave. And the Cuban > government didn't restrain them from exercising their choice. > > After the first big emigration, how much is left, Ron? I don't know, > but I don't think much. 10% for a small country is not a whole lot. > What's so unique about that? ------ An apologist for totalitarianism has spoken again. First, Tony's analogies are ridiculous. The Tories left after the American revolution because they considered themselves to be British subjects, and wished to remain so. Likewise, the French living in Algeria were Frenchmen, and did not wish to remain in Algeria when it was no longer part of their country. The people leaving Cuba were CUBANS, leaving what undeniably was their own country. If I lived in Puerto Rico, and it became independent, I might choose to leave because I am an American, not a Puerto Rican, regardless of the nature of the new government. Secondly, 10% in a period of a few years sounds like a lot to me. It's a lot more than left, say, Chile when the brutal Pinochet took power, or than left Argentina during the worst of the killings there, or than left Brazil during all its years of military rule. But of course, those were right-wing torturers and murderers, so they are bad. Left wing (excuse me, "progressive") torturers and murderers are exempt unless their abuses are so well publicized that even you can't ignore them. I was only slightly heartened to see you mention the "excesses" of the Dergue in Ethiopia in another posting. If it had been Haile Selassie, you would have used a lot stronger term than excesses. Let's see, Hitler was a mass murderer, but Stalin was merely "excessive". Thirdly, Tony characterizes the refugees as "part of the groups the revolution was made against". Only a small portion were large landowners. Many of the early refugees were middle class professionals or small business owners. Of course, these people are beyond Mr. Wuersch's pale. I would conclude by stating that Fidel Castro is far from the worst dictator in the world. He really does believe in the economic and social welfare of his people, and does not appear to be a personally cruel or venal man. However, tyranny is still tyranny. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/11/85)
In article <1206@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [Tony Wuersch] >> A born-again counterrevolutionary has spoken again. When did most >> of these people leave Cuba? Did they have any problems leaving? >> >> I'll bet they left at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, just >> as Tories (lots) left the USA and French (all) left Algeria. If they >> left then, they also had little problem leaving (aside from problems >> associated with the mood of panic at the time -- you can't expect a >> new regime to be an efficient emigration-cum-travel agency too --). >> >> If a significant minority of Cubans (remember, the number is 10%) >> decide they can't afford to wait and see if a revolution helps them >> or hurts them (and why should they wait if they were part of the groups >> the revolution was made against?), they leave. And the Cuban >> government didn't restrain them from exercising their choice. >> >> After the first big emigration, how much is left, Ron? I don't know, >> but I don't think much. 10% for a small country is not a whole lot. >> What's so unique about that? >------ >An apologist for totalitarianism has spoken again. > First, Tony's analogies are ridiculous. The Tories left after the >American revolution because they considered themselves to be British >subjects, and wished to remain so. Likewise, the French living in >Algeria were Frenchmen, and did not wish to remain in Algeria when >it was no longer part of their country. The people leaving Cuba were >CUBANS, leaving what undeniably was their own country. If I lived >in Puerto Rico, and it became independent, I might choose to leave >because I am an American, not a Puerto Rican, regardless of the nature >of the new government. Agreed, twice. By the way, one of the reasons that many Cubans left after Castro took over is that Castro became the first Cuban ruler to perform overtly political executions. Batista didn't execute his opponents, or even give them long prison terms -- for his first revolution, Castro got about three years. Castro executed everybody, even opposition Senators. > Secondly, 10% in a period of a few years sounds like a lot to me. >It's a lot more than left, say, Chile when the brutal Pinochet took >power, or than left Argentina during the worst of the killings there, >or than left Brazil during all its years of military rule. It's an awful lot. The population of the Revolutionary United States was about 1.3 million. If 10% left because they were Tories, then the population o of Lower Canada and Nova Scotia would have swelled by 130,000, or more than doubled. In fact, there were less than 10,000 "United Empire Loyalists" as the Tories were known in Canada. I might also point out that George Washington took pains to ensure that the lives and property of Tories that remained in the United States were protected and respected. Indeed, there was no case of a political execution or even a jailing in the post-Revolutionary period. Castro...see above. Rick.