piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/07/84)
<...>
Herewith I want to express my deepest feelings for all those poor and
innocent people who are going to die in the next four years throughout
the world and specifically in Central America.... only because of the
re-election of Reagan.
I also want to express my disgust for all those Americans who, by voting
for this man, are co-responsible for the deaths of all those people.
America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you
have to be proud of.
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/09/84)
> Herewith I want to express my deepest feelings for all those poor and > innocent people who are going to die in the next four years throughout > the world and specifically in Central America.... only because of the > re-election of Reagan. > I also want to express my disgust for all those Americans who, by voting > for this man, are co-responsible for the deaths of all those people. > > America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you > have to be proud of. > > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet I wish you would try to avoid this sort of nationalistic cross-Atlantic name calling. I wouldn't say that Reagan's victory made me very happy either, but I think that calling this a black day in America's history and saying that Americans have nothing to be proud of is pretty strong language from somebody who is leading a comfortable life and not working in the slave-mines in Siberia only because of American power. I could spend a lot of time criticizing the Dutch government and such things as legalized prostitution and drugs in the Netherlands, but I think that this sort of discussion has no place on an international network, and I hope I don't see any more of it. Wayne
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/09/84)
'balckest day in history'? Come on now! You guys across the ditch must have inhaled something Reagan will act on behalf of US National interests, just as mondale would have. All this garbage about Central America ais hysterics. You people have little right to criticize defense policy as we pay for yours! Milo
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/10/84)
> Herewith I want to express my deepest feelings for all those poor and > innocent people who are going to die in the next four years throughout > the world and specifically in Central America.... only because of the > re-election of Reagan. I share Piet's frustration and helplessness. It looks like our government is hell-bent on treating Central America like they were a small businessman who stopped paying his protection. ("Those are nice teachers and children you have there...") Analytically though, I have to disagree with Piet on two points: 1) It is not *only* because of Reagan. This is not a matter of personal pre- ference on his part: our government's control in its sphere of influence is at stake. A Democrat might have brought a different personal style to the job, but he still would hve had the same job to do (defend the sphere of influence) and the same resources to do it with (money and weapons). The problem here is the system of domination, not the senile chief salesman for the system. > I also want to express my disgust for all those Americans who, by voting > for this man, are co-responsible for the deaths of all those people. > > America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you > have to be proud of. 2) Our country has dragged our government kicking and screaming out of Nicaragua before. (1930's) We also dragged presidents Johnson and Nixon kicking and screaming out of Vietnam. I expect we'll do it again. [The Nicaraguan people understand this. While travelling there I heard a lot of bitter complaints about my government, but nobody ever took it out on me as an American. Nor did anybody suggest counter-terrorism against *our* country.] But unfortunately it takes time. Enough time to do bad harm to hundreds of thousands of victims (including the marines who will be told that they are dying for our country, and the middle class here who will be ripped off for an obscene amount of our paychecks, and of course the Central Americans themselves). Finally, some of our own history, in hopes of remembering more and re-living less: Our ministers accredited to the five little republics... have been advisors whose advice has been accepted virtually as law... We do control the destinies of Central America and we do so for the simple reason that the national interest absolutely dictates such a course... Until now, Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those we do not recognize and support fall. -- State Department memorandum, 1927 quoted in El Salvador, the Face of Revolution Armstrong & Schenk, South End Press, Boston Sure He[Somoza]'s a son of a bitch, but he's *our* son of a bitch. -- Franklin D Roosevelt -- Dr Memory ...{amd,ucbvax,ihnp4}!qubix!jdb
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/10/84)
> You people have little right to > criticize defense policy as we pay for yours! > > > Milo Thank you very much Mr. Medin for paying for `our' defence. We feel we are in eternal debt to You for being oh, so generous. We hope Your magnanimous kindness did not cause You any great inconvenience. Now, it might not have crossed You mind (pardon the thought) that we aren't very happy that You are paying for our defence, and that we would very much like to get rid of various aspects of Your trully selfless kindness, such as Pershing II peacekeepers, Cruise liberators, F-18 freedom fighters etc. Of course, it's always difficult to refuse expensive gifts from one's good friends but really, Mr. Medin, it wasn't worth Your trouble, You know what I mean? May I humbly suggest that You would make us much, oh so much happier, if You kept Your expensive gifts and spent Your precious money on activities less frivolous than the defense of ungrateful barbarians. We feel we're big kids now, we can sort of take care of ourselves. Thank You. Vassos Hadzilacos Another ungrateful military aid welfare bum.
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/11/84)
In article <6166@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: >Herewith I want to express my deepest feelings for all those poor and >innocent people who are going to die in the next four years throughout >the world and specifically in Central America.... only because of the >re-election of Reagan. >I also want to express my disgust for all those Americans who, by voting >for this man, are co-responsible for the deaths of all those people. > >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you >have to be proud of. Statements such as this that offer an utter absence of support or justification for the sentiments expressed remind me of a statement of Winston Churchill's, regarding an MP: "He has the gift for compressing a maximum of words into a minimum of thought." (Quoted as closely as memory serves) -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/12/84)
> > 'balckest day in history'? Come on now! You guys across the ditch > must have inhaled something Reagan will act on behalf of US National > interests, just as mondale would have. All this garbage about > Central America ais hysterics. You people have little right to > criticize defense policy as we pay for yours! > > > Milo Europeans have every right to criticize our defense policies, as it is much more likely to directly affect them than us. How would you like it if France (for instance) intended to house nuclear-tipped cruise missles in your town? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/14/84)
> > Europeans have every right to criticize our defense policies, as it is much > more likely to directly affect them than us. How would you like it if France > (for instance) intended to house nuclear-tipped cruise missles in your town? > What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their allies than they are of their adversaries. Going on with your analogy, yes I would be concerned if France did that. I would be much more concerned, however, if Cuba pointed high-yield, MIRVed ICBM's *at* my home town. Yet few Europeanse that I've met are very concerned about those inconspicuous SS-20's... -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "His mind is like a steel trap: full of mice" -Foghorn Leghorn
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (11/14/84)
In article <106@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: >> >> Europeans have every right to criticize our defense policies, as it is much >> more likely to directly affect them than us. How would you like it if France >> (for instance) intended to house nuclear-tipped cruise missles in your town? >> > >What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their >allies than they are of their adversaries. Going on with your analogy, yes >I would be concerned if France did that. I would be much more concerned, >however, if Cuba pointed high-yield, MIRVed ICBM's *at* my home town. Yet >few Europeanse that I've met are very concerned about those inconspicuous >SS-20's... >-- > Greg Kuperberg Not odd at all, Greg! Some Europeans of this day, (unfortunately some of the more vocal ones, both on the net, and in the populace at large), seem to have the typical European attitude, of "Well, if I don't annoy the bear by holding this rifle here, he won't try to have me for dinner, you see". This is also called the Neville Chamberlain policy, and strangely enough, Europe has been seriously afflicted with it, (with occasionaly outbreaks in the US), before BOTH World Wars in this century. Of course, they don't have to worry too hard, there's always the U.S. across the sea to bail them out... (may not be time for that this time though!) -JCP-
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/15/84)
<...>
>All this garbage about Central America ais hysterics.
I'll come back on it.... as soon as US terrorists have invaded Nicaragua.
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam
...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietpiet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/15/84)
>I could spend a lot of time criticizing the Dutch government and such >things as legalized prostitution and drugs in the Netherlands Where? Facts please! -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/16/84)
>> Europeans have every right to criticize our defense policies, as it is much >> more likely to directly affect them than us. > > What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their > allies than they are of their adversaries [...] > few Europeanse that I've met are very concerned about those inconspicuous > SS-20's... Maybe Europeans (as well as other `U.S. allies' who feel the same way) have reasons not to be `very concerned about those incospicuous SS-20's'? Maybe you've been taken for a ride all along about the `Soviet threat'? I don't know if you realize how arrogant and patronizing it is to be telling others what they should be concerend with, especially when it is clear (from their viewpoint, anyhow) that your suggestions of who they should consider their friends and who their enemies are hardly disinterested. Vassos Hadzilacos
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (11/16/84)
In article <106@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > >What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their >allies than they are of their adversaries. > Sorry, I don't think that the placement of US nuclear weapons in Europe is being done to defend Western Europe. I believe that whereas these weapons might possibly be regarded as a part of the US defence, their presence in Western Europe is a threat to us over here. We would be better off defending ourselves from the Eastern Block (which I detest) by ourselves without any so called "help" from the other side of the Atlantic. Please keep your missiles where they belong - over there. Mike Williams Stockholm, Sweden.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/17/84)
> > >I could spend a lot of time criticizing the Dutch government and such > >things as legalized prostitution and drugs in the Netherlands > Where? Facts please! > > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet Facts? I've walked through Amsterdam, and I've seen the heroin pushers that hang out near the police station... Also the 1/5 of Dutch citizens that are on welfare... But I'm not supposed to be criticizing -- maybe you are the sort of person who enjoys nationalistic self-righteousness, but I'd rather discuss substantial matters and not resort to the sort of name-calling that you enjoy subjecting people to. Wayne
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/17/84)
> Sorry, I don't think that the placement of US nuclear weapons in Europe is > being done to defend Western Europe. I believe that whereas these weapons > might possibly be regarded as a part of the US defence, their presence in > Western Europe is a threat to us over here. > > We would be better off defending ourselves from the Eastern Block (which I > detest) by ourselves without any so called "help" from the other side of the > Atlantic. Please keep your missiles where they belong - over there. > > Mike Williams > Stockholm, Sweden. That is precisely what the missiles are there for. Granted that we can already demolish the Russian cities with the missiles on our continent, the cruise missiles are there to hit Russian missile silos. In turn, these Russian missile silos are pointed at Western Europe and are in fact too far away to hit the U.S. You may ask at this point, "If the U.S. can hit the U.S.S.R from North America, why do they have missiles in Europe?" The answer is detectability. Cruise missiles are designed to get by the radar, and they are not long range. On the other hand, since Pershings are detectable, they have to be able to strike quickly, which again means that they need to be close to the Soviet border. May I remind you of the politics of just a year or two ago? The Soviets offered the zero option, which meant that the U.S. would have zero missiles in Europe while the Soviets would not. The Reagan Administration then countered with the zero-zero option, whereby both the U.S. and the Soviet Union would have zero missiles in Europe. The Soviet reply was: "If we aren't allowed any missiles in Europe, then not only the U.S., but also France and England should not be allowed any missiles either." NATO forces disagreed, and that was the end of it. Hardly a matter of U.S. defense. Now you may argue that this is a stupid way to defend Western Europe, that conventional forces are a lot safer, and so on. You may well be right (although I'm not completely sure). The point is that at least the U.S.'s goal in the this affair (which is to be able to defend Western Europe if necessary) should be more palatable than the Soviet goal (which is to be able to destroy Western Europe if necessary). Yet as a rule, peace demonstrations in the West are very anti-American, and are anti-Soviet to a much lesser degree. Finally, may I commend you for detesting the governments of the Eastern Bloc. Not everyone on this side of the Iron Curtain shares your views.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/18/84)
> In article <106@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > > > >What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their > >allies than they are of their adversaries. > > > Sorry, I don't think that the placement of US nuclear weapons in Europe is > being done to defend Western Europe. I believe that whereas these weapons > might possibly be regarded as a part of the US defence, their presence in > Western Europe is a threat to us over here. > > We would be better off defending ourselves from the Eastern Block (which I > detest) by ourselves without any so called "help" from the other side of the > Atlantic. Please keep your missiles where they belong - over there. If the weapons are in Western Europe, it is because the elected heads of state of these countries saw fit to have them put there. If it were truly against the self-interest of Western Europe to have the missles there, the European governments wouldn't allow it. And I'm sure that the leaders of the governments understand the situation a lot better than most of the knee-jerk pacifists who have been making most of the protests. Wayne
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/19/84)
> May I remind you of the politics of just a year or two ago? The Soviets > offered the zero option, which meant that the U.S. would have zero missiles > in Europe while the Soviets would not. The Reagan Administration then > countered with the zero-zero option, whereby both the U.S. and the Soviet > Union would have zero missiles in Europe. The Soviet Union never offered anything called "the zero option". The "zero option" was a proposal of Reagan's; there was no such thing as as "zero-zero" option, just plain old "zero". Reagan's zero option did not say that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should both not have any missiles in Europe, it only said there should be no such LAND-BASED missiles in Europe. The "zero option" was presented with substatial fanfare in the U.S. (Reagan, you see, had to convince the American people that he was concerened with peace and negotiations.) It got a rather lukewarm reception elsewhere (U.S. European "allies" included) because its hypocricy was rather transparent: it just so happens that the overwhelming majority of Soviet nuclear power is land-based, while U.S., French and British nuclear power is more evenly distributed in the tree modes (land-, air- and submarine-based). [One of the great U.S. presidents -- where are they now? -- said something like: "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some people all of the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time." ] Vassos Hadzilacos
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/19/84)
To say that it was "Neville Chamberlainism" that caused World War ONE is a gross distortion of history. World War One was fought over an issue that was only critical to one of the principals--the Austrians-- and important to only one other--the Russians. After all, it was not a pacifist who stated that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a single Pommeranian Grenadier! (Ans: Bismarck) WWI and WWII do NOT teach us the same diplomatic lesson, but rather the danger of BOTH extremes. Promoting Radical Centrism, David Rubin
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (11/19/84)
Mike Williams is probably right. Western Europe would probably be better off defending itself--if it could gather the will to do so. However, it cannot, as evidenced by the REQUEST by the Europeans for the Cruise missiles. As Europe is unwilling to spend sufficient funds to insure its own defense, it seeks to use US assets for its own benefit. Fortunately for them, we perceive it to be in our own interests, as well as the right thing to do, to support them. However, I digress. My point is that the installation of intermediate range missiles is for Europe's benefit, not America's. It is part of the continued strategy of "linking" US and European defenses. Whether such moves convince the Soviets that our nuclear defenses are linked is debatable (the French have concluded that it is not convincing, and I agree), it was the European governments which desired to press for their deployment. What evidently scared the Europeans was not so much the installation of the missiles as the saber-rattling early in the Reagan administration. While Carter was President, there was no protest, and I suspect had Reagan handled himself better there would have been little protest in 1981-3. David Rubin
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/19/84)
> >> Europeans have every right to criticize our defense policies, as it is much > >> more likely to directly affect them than us. > > > > What is odd in this case is that the Europeans are more critical of their > > allies than they are of their adversaries [...] > > few Europeanse that I've met are very concerned about those inconspicuous > > SS-20's... > > Maybe Europeans (as well as other `U.S. allies' who feel the same way) > have reasons not to be `very concerned about those incospicuous SS-20's'? > Maybe you've been taken for a ride all along about the `Soviet threat'? > > I don't know if you realize how arrogant and patronizing it is to be > telling others what they should be concerend with, especially when > it is clear (from their viewpoint, anyhow) that your suggestions of > who they should consider their friends and who their enemies are hardly > disinterested. > > Vassos Hadzilacos I stand corrected: the majority of Europeans are indeed very concerned about SS-20's. It happens to be the case, however, that those who choose to ignore the existence of the SS-20's are more likely to be political loud-mouths. Some of there so-called pacifists actually do not know that their own governments actually *want* U.S. military support. Don't you remember who originally drafted the plan to put Pershing II's and cruise missiles in Europe? (Well, Thatcher, Schmidt, and Giscard all had a big part in it...) What is it that makes you so unconcerned with an SS-20 anyway? The fact that there are over 300 of them? The fact that they are triple-MIRV'ed? The fact that they can hit almost anything in Europe? Look, I'm no Reagan dupe, as you seem to imply. I simply don't get my information from the President, or for that matter from anywhere in the Federal Government. I read Time and Scientific American, I watch the news on T.V., and I talk to people of all political persuasions. I don't know how you can say that I've been "taken for a ride."
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (11/20/84)
>We would be better off defending ourselves from the Eastern Block (which I >detest) by ourselves without any so called "help" from the other side of the >Atlantic. Please keep your missiles where they belong - over there. > >Mike Williams >Stockholm, Sweden. Okay all you American taxpayers out there, remember this statement! If we could get similar statements from authorized representatives of other European powers, (lets start with England, Holland, and Germany), we could save ourselves LOTS of money. But remember all you anti-American-defense people in Europe, you have to smile at the Soviet tanks... (no fair screaming for US aid AFTER the Russian invasion now!) -JCP-
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/20/84)
>You may ask at this point, "If the U.S. can hit the U.S.S.R from North >America, why do they have missiles in Europe?" The answer is >detectability. Cruise missiles are designed to get by the radar, and >they are not long range. So your answer hides the reality: those missiles are placed here to give the USA a possibility to fight out a "limited" (?) nuclear war far from their own territory. That means: in Europe. And in the view of the US a "limited" nuclear war will not lead to a global nuclear exchange. So: Europe gone, USSR severely weakened, USA survives without major damage. That's US policy..... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/21/84)
In article <6166@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: ><...> > >Herewith I want to express my deepest feelings for all those poor and >innocent people who are going to die in the next four years throughout >the world and specifically in Central America.... only because of the >re-election of Reagan. >I also want to express my disgust for all those Americans who, by voting >for this man, are co-responsible for the deaths of all those people. > >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you >have to be proud of. > >-- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet Piet, You make the absolutely unwarranted assumption that Walter Mondale would have done "better," whatever that means. Furthermore, America has many things to be proud of, even if this were not one of them. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/21/84)
>>>I could spend a lot of time criticizing the Dutch government >>>and such things as legalized prostitution and drugs in the >>>Netherlands >>Where? Facts please! >Facts? I've walked through Amsterdam, and I've seen the heroin pushers >that hang out near the police station... Also the 1/5 of Dutch citizens >that are on welfare... 1/5? Which malinformed person did tell you that? Reagan? Anyway I fail to see any relationship between your statements and "*legalized* prostitution and drugs". -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (11/21/84)
European criticism of US deployment of missiles in Europe is more properly directed at the European governments (or at least the parties in power) than at the US. If the people in Europe are so universally opposed to US missiles, why haven't their elected representatives refused to allow US missiles in their countries? The answer just might be that most Europeans support the US presence in Eorope, and that this attit- ude is reflected by the elected governments of the various countries. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/23/84)
> > If the weapons are in Western Europe, it is because the elected heads of > state of these countries saw fit to have them put there. If it were truly > against the self-interest of Western Europe to have the missles there, > the European governments wouldn't allow it. And I'm sure that the leaders > of the governments understand the situation a lot better than most of > the knee-jerk pacifists who have been making most of the protests. > > Wayne Wayne must have been reading alot of Jefferson lately. All power to the elite! -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/26/84)
> >Facts? I've walked through Amsterdam, and I've seen the heroin pushers > >that hang out near the police station... Also the 1/5 of Dutch citizens > >that are on welfare... > 1/5? Which malinformed person did tell you that? Reagan? >... > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam I have only heard about five sentences uttered by Reagan this semester. To think that he is my source of information is preposterous. The same is true for most Americans, probably including Wayne.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/26/84)
In article <6166@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: ><...> > >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you >have to be proud of. > >-- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you wish. He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you feel so inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if you simply complain about the U.S. and its people, then as an American citizen, I am personally insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/26/84)
> > >You may ask at this point, "If the U.S. can hit the U.S.S.R from North > >America, why do they have missiles in Europe?" The answer is > >detectability. Cruise missiles are designed to get by the radar, and > >they are not long range. > So your answer hides the reality: those missiles are placed here to give the > USA a possibility to fight out a "limited" (?) nuclear war far from their own > territory. That means: in Europe. And in the view of the US a "limited" nuclear > war will not lead to a global nuclear exchange. So: Europe gone, USSR severely > weakened, USA survives without major damage. That's US policy..... > > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet Yes, but why would Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl want this? Believe it or not, those missiles are for the defense of Western Europe. The cruise missiles can't even hit Moscow. And it's not U.S. policy, it's NATO policy.
marti@hplabsc.UUCP (Robert Marti) (11/27/84)
In response to article <127@talcott.UUCP> by Greg J. Kuperberg >> America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you >> have to be proud of. >> >> -- >> Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ========= >> ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet > America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you wish. > He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you feel so > inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if you simply complain > about the U.S. and its people, then as an American citizen, I am personally > insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. ====== I always thought that Amsterdam was in Holland rather than in Sweden ... :-) But then again, as you say, America is a great country, so why should one of its great citizens care about anything as remote and unimportant as Europe ... Bob Marti, HP Labs (not Dutch, not Swedish, but European)
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/27/84)
>America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you >wish. Thank you! >He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you >feel so inclined. It is not what makes America great. No, on the contrary! >But if you simply complain about the U.S. and its people, I seem to remember that I was speaking about America in the context of Reagan's re-election. >then as an American citizen, I am personally insulted. Oh poor! Now watcha gonna do? Send the Marines? >Please keep your rantings in Sweden. Geography doesn't seem to be your strongest point. Amsterdam happens to lie in Holland, officially known as "The Netherlands". But apart from that I feel free to speak up anywhere I want to, just as you can feel free to skip my messages. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/28/84)
-- >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you >have to be proud of. > >-- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam >> America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you >> wish. He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if >> you feel so inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if >> you simply complain about the U.S. and its people, then as an American >> citizen, I am personally insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. Ain't that the quintessential American reply? True blue, he puts his heart in the right place, but he has a little trouble with Amsterdam. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 27 Nov 84 [7 Frimaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
jim@haring.UUCP (11/28/84)
> >-- > > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet > > ...insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. Is it any wonder we worry where these offensive weapons are being placed? Jim McKie Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam mcvax!jim
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (11/28/84)
In article <127@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > Please keep your rantings in Sweden. In Sweden???? Why would Piet Beertema want to rant in Sweden when he both comes from and lives in Holland. Anyway I don't think he is ranting. He's just saying what many of us Europeans think. You may not like it, but you it's better that you actually know what other people think. Mike Williams
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (11/28/84)
In article <127@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > In article <6166@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: > ><...> > > > >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you > >have to be proud of. > > > >-- > > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet > > America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you wish. > He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you feel so > inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if you simply complain > about the U.S. and its people, then as an American citizen, I am personally > insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. Funny, I remember about 5 years ago right before the hostage situation in Iran, we (Iranian students) had a demonstration on campus protesting the US government's letting the Shah of Iran here. What ensued was about 1,500 American students surrounding us (about 25 of us) telling us that "America is a great country, US presidents ARE the American people, and the US government IS America." We were told the atrocities committed by Shah, with full knowledge of the US government, were right because "That's the way it is". And if we didn't believe them, they would gladly "prove" it to us. We were rescued by the police and ... but that's another story. I am not saying that what you say is wrong. Actually that's the way it should be. You can never expect a government (even in a democracy) to do exactly what the people want, and no more. But you at least want the people to be aware of this. The mentality in this country is changing and is becoming more and more of a bully mentality. The Iranian situation probably was the turning point. Now Americans either blindly approve of what their government does, or just don't want to know about it. "Remember Iran" is becoming a catch phrase. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (11/29/84)
In article <805@ihuxk.UUCP> rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) writes: > European criticism of US deployment of missiles in Europe is more > properly directed at the European governments (or at least the parties > in power) than at the US. Most of it is, though it may be that the American press only covers the protests that most affect the US. > If the people in Europe are so universally opposed to US missiles, why > haven't their elected representatives refused to allow US missiles in their > countries? We're not universally opposed, just most of us. Still, it's a question I too would like answered: since so many of the people they represent are opposed to the missiles, why haven't they refused them? > The answer just might be that most Europeans support the US presence in > Europe, and that this attitude is reflected by the elected governments of > the various countries. Since this is not the case, perhaps it's that democracy is not yet strong enough. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam, Sweden; steven@mcvax.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/29/84)
> In response to article <127@talcott.UUCP> by Greg J. Kuperberg > > >> America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you > >> have to be proud of. > >> > >> -- > >> Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ========= > >> ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet > > > America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you wish. > > He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you feel so > > inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if you simply complain > > about the U.S. and its people, then as an American citizen, I am personally > > insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. > ====== > > I always thought that Amsterdam was in Holland rather than in Sweden ... :-) > > But then again, as you say, America is a great country, so why should > one of its great citizens care about anything as remote and unimportant > as Europe ... > > Bob Marti, HP Labs (not Dutch, not Swedish, but European) Oops. I confused Piet with Steve Pemberton, who is indeed in Sweden. You may still think that I'm really uneducated, but in fact I actually lived in Sweden for three years, and I do know about these things. Nevertheless, I don't go around saying things like, "Europe, you have nothing to be proud of." And although I am now an American citizen, this has only been for the past four years. I'm really a Pole. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Eureka!" -Archimedes
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/29/84)
Say Peit, ever taken a walk down Canal Street in your city. Try it sometime. Go down there about midnight and then tell us there is no prostitution in Amsterdam.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/30/84)
> In article <127@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > > Please keep your rantings in Sweden. > > In Sweden???? Why would Piet Beertema want to rant in Sweden when he both > comes from and lives in Holland. Anyway I don't think he is ranting. He's > just saying what many of us Europeans think. You may not like it, but you > it's better that you actually know what other people think. > > Mike Williams Yeah, yeah, that's about the tenth comment about the typo I made. See my other article for an explanation. I know damn well that many Europeans think this way. And I think that it's a bad attitude. I mean, what would *you* think of an American tourist that goes over to a random European country and simply criticizes it? I think that you'd have a lot of contempt for the person. Remember, this is an American network that your posting to. I have not seen one positive comment about the U.S. coming from Europe in net.politics. Any government does good things and bad things. I could make any country look bad by simply listing its bad qualities. Now, a friend of mine seriously said, "I don't believe you. Name something good that the U.S. Government does." Here's a small example: the millions of illegal aliens in the States. These aliens, although not as well of as American citizens, are much better off than their friends in their home countries. We could just kick them all out and send them back to their respective Latin American countries, but we're not doing this. We're hardly even requiring them to become legal aliens. You may think at this point that I'm simply an American that's awful proud of his own society. No, I'm speaking as a Pole who's awfully impressed with the country that his parents moved him to long ago. I'm also speaking for the many foreign friends that I have that are also very happy with their life in the U.S.A. But if you really want to have a smear campaign, Mike, Steven, Piet, and the rest of you, here goes: Sweden (home of Mike and Steven) is a terrible country. I know, I lived there. At first, my family was on welfare. Since this career was not upwardly mobile, my dad got a position at Stockholm University (perhaps it was University of Stockholm; I don't remember [it was long ago]). The Swedish Government apparantly didn't like this; they put him in a 47% tax bracket, so that he made less money working than he did on welfare. After three years, he got discouraged and left. Too bad. In any case, despite all their efforts (their efforts being 70% of the Swedish GNP), the wealthy are still *very* wealthy in Sweden. In fact, the wealthiest 5% of the population makes more than three times as much as the poorest 20%, while the same ratio in the U.S. is less than three. I guess they are just an inferior society. There, how does that make you feel? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Eureka!" -Archimedes
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/30/84)
>Oops. I confused Piet with Steve Pemberton, who is indeed in Sweden. >You may still think that I'm really uneducated, but in fact I actually >lived in Sweden for three years, and I do know about these things. >Nevertheless, I don't go around saying things like, "Europe, you have >nothing to be proud of." Boy, are you asking for this reply!: Of course not. Europe's got Amsterdam. Plus Steve Pemberton, who lives here..... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/01/84)
> Boy, are you asking for this reply!: > Of course not. Europe's got Amsterdam. Plus Steve Pemberton, who lives > here..... > > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet Ok, maybe a joke will fix things up: Q: How do you sink the Belgian Navy? A: Put it in water. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Belgium is somewhere near the Netherlands, right?" :-)
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (12/03/84)
Just a mild flame. Please read the following: > > >Oops. I confused Piet with Steve Pemberton, who is indeed in Sweden. > >You may still think that I'm really uneducated, but in fact I actually > >lived in Sweden for three years, and I do know about these things. > >Nevertheless, I don't go around saying things like, "Europe, you have > >nothing to be proud of." >Boy, are you asking for this reply!: >Of course not. Europe's got Amsterdam. Plus Steve Pemberton, who lives >here..... > >-- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet Now, having read the quoted text, take a moment and note the Subject: line. Now, if my point is not yet in place, please re-read the quoted text... (Let us quietly note that there is no real problem editing subject lines to maintain at least some semblance of relationship to it and the subject of the posting.) Thank you. Kindly. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (12/03/84)
In article <146@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > >I mean, what would *you* think of an American tourist that goes over to a >random European country and simply criticises it? I think that you'd >have a lot of contempt for the person. Lots of Americans do just this. I think they have a right to do so and don't object at all. Critisism of one's own country by foreigners often brings out the worst of the nationalistics traits in us all. > >Remember, this is an American network that your posting to. This is NOT an American network. Most of the sites are in the USA. But there are plenty elsewhere. This is an international network and that's why it is important that net.politics should be used to promote international debate. >I have not seen one positive comment about the U.S. coming from Europe in >net.politics. > OK. I like the USA and enjoy my sporadic visits. I infinitely prefer the USA to the eastern block countries. But that doesn't mean that I think that everything in the USA is perfect. I'm sure you don't think so either. > >Sweden (home of Mike and Steven) is a terrible country. Ooops. Steven lives in Holland. I am British (I think that Steven is too) and live in Sweden. >I know, I lived >there. At first, my family was on welfare. Since this career was not >upwardly mobile, my dad got a position at Stockholm University (perhaps it >was University of Stockholm; I don't remember [it was long ago]). The >Swedish Government apparantly didn't like this; they put him in a 47% tax >bracket, so that he made less money working than he did on welfare. After >three years, he got discouraged and left. Too bad. > >In any case, despite all their efforts (their efforts being 70% of the >Swedish GNP), the wealthy are still *very* wealthy in Sweden. In fact, the >wealthiest 5% of the population makes more than three times as much as the >poorest 20%, while the same ratio in the U.S. is less than three. I guess >they are just an inferior society. > Good. You have dared to critisise Sweden. I'm glad that the network is being used properly for international exchanges of opinion. Do you wish me to reply to your criticism or are you just not interested in life outside the USA? Mike Williams
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/03/84)
>I mean, what would *you* think of an American tourist that goes over to a >random European country and simply criticizes it? I think that you'd >have a lot of contempt for the person. > It's not a fair comparison. Most Americans are very ignorant about the world around them. Many Europeans know more about American foreign policy than Americans do. Further, these particular Europeans are making a very pointed criticism; they are not just "going over and simply criticizing." >Here's a small example [of a 'good thing' America does]: >the millions of illegal aliens >in the States. These aliens, although not as well of as American citizens, >are much better off than their friends in their home countries. We could >just kick them all out and send them back to their respective Latin >American countries, but we're not doing this. We're hardly even requiring >them to become legal aliens. Greg, you picked the wrong example. You really don't think that Immigration doesn't just round people up and send them back home? They often get sent the very day they are arrested, with no chance to contact family or friends here in the U.S. You can argue that that's justified, but don't tell me it doesn't happen, because it certainly does. To me, most of the examples of "good things" that "America" does are examples of things individual Americans do, not things our government does. For example, the Peace Corps is run as a large propaganda machine, but that doesn't prevent individual Peace Corps volunteers from rising above the bureaucracy to do truly worthwhile things in the field. The government as a government, though, does very little to be proud of, especially with Reagan's gang in charge.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/05/84)
> > >I mean, what would *you* think of an American tourist that goes over to a > >random European country and simply criticizes it? I think that you'd > >have a lot of contempt for the person. > > > > It's not a fair comparison. Most Americans are very ignorant about the world > around them. Many Europeans know more about American foreign policy than > Americans do. Further, these particular Europeans are making a very pointed > criticism; they are not just "going over and simply criticizing." Your sweeping generalities are unsubstantiated. > >Here's a small example [of a 'good thing' America does]: > >the millions of illegal aliens > >in the States. These aliens, although not as well of as American citizens, > >are much better off than their friends in their home countries. We could > >just kick them all out and send them back to their respective Latin > >American countries, but we're not doing this. We're hardly even requiring > >them to become legal aliens. > > Greg, you picked the wrong example. You really don't think that Immigration > doesn't just round people up and send them back home? They often get sent the > very day they are arrested,with no chance to contact family or friends here in > the U.S... There is implicit confusion here between the concepts of "some","most", and "all". Some illegal aliens get kicked out immediately. Most stay for free. Almost all are better off here than in Latin America. > The government as a government, though, does very little to be proud of, > especially with Reagan's gang in charge. That I agree with. Unfortunately, there is implicit confusion between the American goverment and America. The American goverment is only 33% of the American GNP, one of the smallest percentages in the deloped world. With the amount of money that the U.S. has, and the amount of weaponry that we *could* build, the U.S. goverment is not very large. This is what I like about America. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -Leonid Breshnev, speaking to Margaret Thatcher.
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/07/84)
>I mean, what would *you* think of an American tourist that goes over >to a random European country and simply criticizes it? >Remember, this is an American network that your posting to. Oh come on! You should know better. This is a worldwide network, reaching the USA, Europe, Australia, Korea and Japan. So far from being "tourists" we're just members of this network. >Any government does good things and bad things. Sure, but some make a lot more abuse of their power than others. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/07/84)
>Say Peit, ever taken a walk down Canal Street in your city. No. The reason being there's no "Canal Street" in Amsterdam.... >Go down there about midnight and then tell us there is >no prostitution in Amsterdam. When and where did I tell so??? Yes, there *is* prostitution in Amsterdam, like there is prostitution in many other places in Holland, Germany, the USA, etc. etc. That's part of Western "civilization", you know. But prostitution that's *tolerated* is quite something else than *legalized* prostitution, which is what the discussion was about. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (12/07/84)
>The government as a government, though, does very little to be proud >of, especially with Reagan's gang in charge. And that's exactly what I was saying in my original article.... for those who can read and thus know how to judge a remark *in its context*. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/09/84)
> Yes, there *is* prostitution in Amsterdam, > like there is prostitution in many other places in Holland, Germany, the USA, > etc. etc. That's part of Western "civilization", you know. But prostitution > that's *tolerated* is quite something else than *legalized* prostitution, > which is what the discussion was about. When there is such a huge gap between what is legal and what it tolerated you wonder what the judicial system spends all their time doing... Wayne
blossom@dspo.UUCP (12/13/84)
> In article <127@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: > > > In article <6166@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: > > ><...> > > > > > >America, this is one more black day in your history. There's nothing you > > >have to be proud of. > > > > > >-- > > > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > > > ...{seismo,decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet > > > > America is a great country. You may criticize Ronald Reagan if you wish. > > He is not America. You may criticize the U.S. Government, if you feel so > > inclined. It is not what makes America great. But if you simply complain > > about the U.S. and its people, then as an American citizen, I am personally > > insulted. Please keep your rantings in Sweden. > > Funny, I remember about 5 years ago right before the hostage situation > in Iran, we (Iranian students) had a demonstration on campus protesting > the US government's letting the Shah of Iran here. What ensued was about > 1,500 American students surrounding us (about 25 of us) telling us that > "America is a great country, US presidents ARE the American people, and > the US government IS America." We were told the atrocities committed by > Shah, with full knowledge of the US government, were right because > "That's the way it is". And if we didn't believe them, they would gladly > "prove" it to us. We were rescued by the police and ... but that's another > story. > > I am not saying that what you say is wrong. Actually that's the way > it should be. You can never expect a government (even in a democracy) > to do exactly what the people want, and no more. But you at least want > the people to be aware of this. > > The mentality in this country is changing and is becoming more and > more of a bully mentality. The Iranian situation probably was the > turning point. Now Americans either blindly approve of what their > government does, or just don't want to know about it. "Remember Iran" > is becoming a catch phrase. > > H. Reza Taheri > ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza > (312)-979-7473 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Has it possible dawned on you that you were *guests* in the US, and that the protest you conducted was extremely ill mannered? Iranians would never have put up with any of the actions ...flag burning,etc that you were guilty of. My own feeling is that Americans have the option of changing our government if we dont like it, but as for barbarians coming here to take advantage of the oportunities in the USA , and running thier loud mouths about our country, PLEASE LEAVE and go jump on an Iraqi mine field where your opinions carry more "wieght" the rantings above have no connection to any known intellegent life form, least of all my employers. j. blossom @ LANL
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (12/13/84)
> > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > > Has it possible dawned on you that you were *guests* in the US, and > that the protest you conducted was extremely ill mannered? Iranians > would never have put up with any of the actions ...flag burning,etc > that you were guilty of. My own feeling is that Americans have the > option of changing our government if we dont like it, but as for > barbarians coming here to take advantage of the oportunities in the > USA , and running thier loud mouths about our country, PLEASE LEAVE > and go jump on an Iraqi mine field where your opinions carry more > "wieght" the rantings above have no connection to any known > intellegent life form, least of all my employers. > j. blossom @ LANL We're all human beings first, citizens of some nation second. Our policies have drastic effects on countries all over the world. We seem to have this nasty habit of supporting very nasty dictators. As far as I'm concerned, foreign nationals have every right to protest in the US. This is one US barbarian telling another to f*ck off (note that I don't rant at you by suggesting you kill yourself, I want you to have fun). -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of my employers. Madison Academic Computing Center ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!myers
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (12/15/84)
[] From dspo!blossom: >> Funny, I remember about 5 years ago right before the hostage situation >> in Iran, we (Iranian students) had a demonstration on campus protesting >> the US government's letting the Shah of Iran here. What ensued was about >> 1,500 American students surrounding us (about 25 of us) telling us that >> "America is a great country, US presidents ARE the American people, and >> the US government IS America." We were told the atrocities committed by >> Shah, with full knowledge of the US government, were right because >> "That's the way it is". And if we didn't believe them, they would gladly >> "prove" it to us. We were rescued by the police and ... but that's another >> story. >.... >> H. Reza Taheri > > Has it possible dawned on you that you were *guests* in the US, and > that the protest you conducted was extremely ill mannered? Iranians > would never have put up with any of the actions ...flag burning,etc > that you were guilty of. My own feeling is that Americans have the > option of changing our government if we dont like it, but as for > barbarians coming here to take advantage of the oportunities in the > USA , and running thier loud mouths about our country, PLEASE LEAVE > and go jump on an Iraqi mine field where your opinions carry more > "wieght" the rantings above have no connection to any known > intellegent life form, least of all my employers. > j. blossom @ LANL OK, lemme get this straight: 1) American Constitution guarantees right of peacable assembly for redress of grievances to all, including foreigners. 2) Per j. blossom, Iran does not put up with such things. 3) j. blossom also doesn't want to put up with such things. So, tell me again: who should we advise to leave the country? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
reza@ihuxb.UUCP (Reza Taheri) (12/18/84)
There was an article on the net a while back stating that Americans and the US government are two different entities and Americans don't always agree with what their government does. I replied to that article and said that as far as foreign policy goes, that is not quite so anymore and a bully mentality is taking over. In response to my article, blossom@dspo.UUCP (j. blossom @ LANL) in <188@dspo.UUCP> writes: > Has it possible dawned on you that you were *guests* in the US, and > that the protest you conducted was extremely ill mannered? Iranians > would never have put up with any of the actions ...flag burning,etc > that you were guilty of. My own feeling is that Americans have the > option of changing our government if we dont like it, but as for > barbarians coming here to take advantage of the oportunities in the > USA , and running thier loud mouths about our country, PLEASE LEAVE > and go jump on an Iraqi mine field where your opinions carry more > "wieght" After reading the above, I was very tempted to answer his/her charges, especially the ones based on the stereotypes that some people seem to believe in. But then, I read the following: > the rantings above have no connection to any known > intellegent life form, least of all my employers. > j. blossom @ LANL You hit the nail right on the head, j.blossom. Anybody with half a brain would have re-read my article before ranting like that. My article gives you no evidence of my involvement in the actions you accuse me of. I'd just like to thank you for a) being so irrational that I don't have to respond and thus save time; and b) showing that people like you exist and proving the point of my original article. H. Reza Taheri ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza (312)-979-7473
emks@uokvax.UUCP (12/20/84)
> Funny, I remember about 5 years ago right before the hostage situation > in Iran, we (Iranian students) had a demonstration on campus protesting > the US government's letting the Shah of Iran here. What ensued was about > 1,500 American students surrounding us (about 25 of us) telling us that > "America is a great country, US presidents ARE the American people, and > the US government IS America." We were told the atrocities committed by > Shah, with full knowledge of the US government, were right because > "That's the way it is". And if we didn't believe them, they would gladly > "prove" it to us. We were rescued by the police and ... but that's another > story. > > I am not saying that what you say is wrong. Actually that's the way > it should be. You can never expect a government (even in a democracy) > to do exactly what the people want, and no more. But you at least want > the people to be aware of this. > > The mentality in this country is changing and is becoming more and > more of a bully mentality. The Iranian situation probably was the > turning point. Now Americans either blindly approve of what their > government does, or just don't want to know about it. "Remember Iran" > is becoming a catch phrase. > > H. Reza Taheri > ...!ihnp4!ihuxb!reza > (312)-979-7473 Mr. Taheri (that sounds too formal, perhaps "Reza" is okay?) I was a college student at the University of Tulsa during the hostage "crisis." I didn't see any protests--probably because I spent most of my time at the "North Campus," which is somewhat removed from the "real" campus. What I did see was a lot of Iranian nationals (and people who *appeared* to be Iranian at first glance) disappear. In fact, most did not reappear in classes until the next semester. Let me put one thing up front. I didn't support Khomeini's (*PLEASE don't flame me if I spelled his name wrong. I DO read the newspapers, but I'm TERRIBLE with name spellings... [fodder from an earlier argument]) supporters' actions against the U.S. government and it's employees at the U.S. Embassy. In fact, I would have gleefully supported military actions against Iran-- but that is another issue, and I guess I shouldn't have brought it up since it's a complicated issue as well. But instead, let's refocus on treatment of Iranian students within the U.S. If my experience is anything approximating "typical," I'll explain that I felt like a "hostage," too. I understood that a foreign government had overrun our embassy (i.e. with government sanction) and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it. Now, my reaction was different than some of the overzealous types; they went so far as to take the "law in their own hands" and "teach those damn 'sand niggers' a lesson." Talk about revulsion. I may disagree vehemently with a person's, a group of people's, or a nation's stated (or taken) position, but that doesn't sanction my cutting them down by class-slander [for lack of a better term], not to mention physical abuse. And a great deal of physical abuse took place. By the way, burning the American flag is a federal offense and, probably, a state offense as well. I know it is in Oklahoma. I'd arrest someone in a heartbeat if they burned a flag in my presence (except for worn-out flags using proper procedure). That flag represents something which I've pleged to "support and defend": the U.S. Constitution and the people for which it stands. Have a safe holiday season. kurt