mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (03/23/85)
While I would hardly endorse the rather strange notion that the UN is
a Communist front (a minority of its members call themselves 'Communist',
and of that minority, only the government-in-exile of Kampuchea actually
seeks to practice Communism), I hope that everyone realizes that the over-
whelming majority of members are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes (the
distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian seems, lately, to depend
on who's talking about whose puppets). I don't see that we have much to
say to these people, and it's ludicrous to subsidize their activities.
Back later,
DKMcKmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/25/85)
>From: mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) >... I hope that everyone realizes that the over- >whelming majority of [U.N.] members are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes (the >distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian seems, lately, to depend >on who's talking about whose puppets). I don't see that we have much to >say to these people, and it's ludicrous to subsidize their activities. (a) There is no difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. It is an invention of Jeanne Kirkpatrick to justify her support for some tyrants and her denunciation of others. Torture is torture. (b) Do you believe there is a military solution for the world's problems? If not, then you either believe there is no solution (a pretty uninspired position) or you believe in a political solution. The U.N. is the world's political forum. We may not like all the other nations of the world, but we have to live with them (unless you believe in a military solution). The U.N. represents our attempt to live with them. I think the U.S. can well afford the money we put into it. It's a very small fraction of the money we invest in the military "solution." Mike Kelly
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (03/27/85)
> (a) There is no difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. > It is an invention of Jeanne Kirkpatrick to justify her support for > some tyrants and her denunciation of others. Torture is torture. > > Mike Kelly Can you name one totalitarian system that has fallen in the last fifty years, without being invaded? Authoritarian rule has fallen in Nicaragua, Argentina, Uraguay, and Iran, and all that just in the last 6 years! Argentina and Uraguay even instituted elections -- when was the last time you saw a totalitarian state go that road? And while torture is tortue, there is no comparing the simply greater capacity of well-run, totalitarian states to inflict pain. All the tin-pot dictators in this century don't add up to the Gulag, much less the Khmere Rouge, the Cultural Revolution, and Castro. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/31/85)
>there is no comparing the simply greater capacity of well-run, totalitarian >states to inflict pain. All the tin-pot dictators in this century don't >add up to the Gulag, much less the Khmere Rouge, the Cultural Revolution, >and Castro. > >Jim Matthews Interesting that you should put Castro in with the Khmer Rouge. Apparently, Castro can mingle in crowds of his own people without being surrounded be security people. Can Reagan? It looks as though Castro is still pretty popular in Cuba. I'll go along with the rest of your letter, though. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/03/85)
>From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) > Can you name one totalitarian system that has fallen in the last fifty >years, without being invaded? Authoritarian rule has fallen in Nicaragua, >Argentina, Uraguay, and Iran, and all that just in the last 6 years! >Argentina and Uraguay even instituted elections -- when was the last time >you saw a totalitarian state go that road? >All the tin-pot dictators in this century don't >add up to the Gulag, much less the Khmere Rouge, the Cultural Revolution, >and Castro. I have no interest in defending totalitarian governments. They are awful. What I'm wondering is why Jeane Kirkpatrick and the Reagan Administration defend their buddies in Chile, South Africa, and Turkey. I'm willing to condemn the whole kit and kaboodle; are you? And, more to the point, why *won't* the Reagan Administration? Mike Kelly
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/03/85)
> I have no interest in defending totalitarian governments. They are awful. > What I'm wondering is why Jeane Kirkpatrick and the Reagan Administration > defend their buddies in Chile, South Africa, and Turkey. I'm willing to > condemn the whole kit and kaboodle; are you? And, more to the point, why > *won't* the Reagan Administration? > > Mike Kelly I have no love for the human rights practices of any of those countries; however, I believe that leaving those countries to revolution would give us the worst of both worlds: a country with equally bad or worse human rights policies *and* a government that isn't friendly (if not outright threatening) to the the U.S. "Condemning the whole kit and kaboodle" is not a realistic option for a world power facing other, agressive world powers. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (04/05/85)
In article <> matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) writes: > I have no love for the human rights practices of any of those >countries; however, I believe that leaving those countries to revolution >would give us the worst of both worlds: a country with equally bad or >worse human rights policies *and* a government that isn't friendly (if not >outright threatening) to the the U.S. "Condemning the whole kit and >kaboodle" is not a realistic option for a world power facing other, agressive >world powers. > Yes, but that's precisely the argument. There is a point at which our NOT exerting pressure on people like Pinochet creates precisely those conditions: The authoritarian gov't assumes our lack of objection constitutes tacit support, as does the opposition. In essence, this is Walter LeFevre's argument in "Inevitable Revolutions".