sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (02/28/85)
>> = Spiros T*, >>>> = DR redux, -> = Spiros T* again, " " = DR yet again and <> Spiros again (I have to switch to a VT-100 w/132 columns... ) -> well, the US has a pretty good record of getting into the action -> uninvited, with *little* reason. Was the Vietnam war (please no flames) or -> even the US aid to Central America out of self-sacrifice? It would not suit American interests to actually force the Soviets to incinerate American cities if they are content with incinerating French and British cities. I defy you to demonstrate such an interest. <> It is MY opinion that the US, will get involved. To prove it (you a <> mathematician?) Would <big-brother> let Ivan nuke 250.000 US soldiers <> in W. Germany ALONE? What about NATO treaties? It ai'nt World war 1 <> anymore..... But in cases like WW1, and the others, with NO <> Americans being threatened (except Grenada :-)) the US still got <> in action *uninvited*. Protecting <big-brother> citizens IS justified <> if they were, say, plain citizens (like the hostages in Iran), but <> protection of military personel on duty is *not* my excuse style. It is irrelevant to the present discussion, but the US was invited into both Vietnam (by a faction just as large, and far less determined, then the Communists) and Central America. There was/is plenty of reason to get involved in both places,... <> The reason is not that obvious to me. I find it VERY hard to believe <> that "sending in the marines with the earliest C-135 available" <> is it due to the <nation> being endangered by the few thousands <> of <red-nation || about-to-turn-red> nation. I am NO expert in <> politics, and perhaps you could take the time to explain... <> Yes, people get invited (by,say the El-Salvadorians, (how disgusting)) ...I'd think you'd concede Jimmy's centrism and leftist credentials of the other three, but you insist on the portraying the missiles as a right-wing construct. <> Jimmy was as leftish and Centrist as any other from the same ole south. <> I have heard people call him names, but leftish and centrist escape me.. As for the interests of the SMALL countries, I will again say this: it is in their interests that the missiles be deployed, though preferably in other countries so that they may gain the security benefits ("linkage") without the security risks. <> Security benefits? what security benefits. Do you seriously suggest <> that the people of <small-nation | population(nation) < say(10..15M)) <> in Europe will be protected and/or SAVED in case of the BANG by <> US missiles? I would appreciate if you include a MY OWN OPINION in <> such statements, and just don't throw'em on the table. My argument is <> rather simple: As a citizen of <small-nation>, no matter how small <> it is, unless 50%+1 of all the citizens of <small-nation> want <> 'em cruises, I am NOT ENFORCED to accept them. NOT ENFORCED by <> either <small-nation>'s government, or by <big-brother>'s actions. >>>> ...... Nothing would go further toward providing security for the West >>>> and easing the burdens now placed on the US. However, ESOK is very >>>> much part of the problem....nationalism is its political currency. -> So, the role of the US in Europe is of a guardian angel of sorts? -> "you can't protect yourselves from Ivan, here I come" logic worked -> ELSEWHERE (you know where, stargate) and will work again, eh!. Ahem, the quote of mine you took above was in response to YOUR note that silly nationalism was preventing the unification of Western Europe (a goal we both think desirable). Yet you defend the politics of ESOK (remember, this all began over our different views of US interests in Cyprus). Do you not see the contradiction, or do you just ignore it? <> Being nationalist (<small-nation> style) has nothing to do with <> it. You are trying to compare apples and oranges, since a <> citizen of <small-nation> can be nationalist like hell and at the <> same time believe in the United Europe idea. Think of the typical <> (say) Texan, and how he/she thinks of Texas, but also of the US. <> Can't see anything wrong, with the exception that Texas belongs to <> the US (ONE nation), while <small-nation> belongs (on paper only) <> to United Europe and United Europe is still on papers (or minds). As for the US defending Western Europe, I never claimed 100% altruistic motives. The fact is that Soviet domination of Europe would vitally threaten both US security and prosperity. Idealogical reasons do play a role, though; if the free world were to be reduced to North America, it would be in dire danger of extinction. ....... <> Finally you came to my point of view: that US missiles in Europe <> are mainly for US interests, and (YOUR OPINION) a little for <> the (US) ideology, etc (free world, etc). An ideology that most people <> in <small-nation> don't know about, don't BOTHER about, etc. <> but an ideology which (x:x E big-brother) cheerfully adopt. <> what if the citizens of <small-nation> were afraid of, say, <> <small-nation-close-to-big-bro>. Would they [ask | demand | force] <> <big brother> to accept their missiles? Would you accept <small-nation> <> missiles in Princeton? Why should I accept <big-brother> missiles <> in <small-nation>? -- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos -- {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigma -- UUCP costs --