riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/10/84)
(Re: Election Result:More War in '84!) >> The very day after the election the big news is a Soviet shipment of Mig's >> to Nicaragua. I think that is the worst possible thing the Soviets could do >> at this point. Peace groups planning civil disobedience against American >> actions might consider protests against this action as well. A couple of things to respond to here -- Why are people taking it for granted that there are really MiGs in those crates? To quote from a UPI article in this morning's paper: "U.S. officials still did not have any firm evidence whether the Burkiana [the Bulgarian freighter in question] carried MiG-21s, and a defense source said other military equipment may have been packed into MiG-21 crates because of their availability." The "crateologists" (yes, that's the word they use) can't even agree: some Pentagon sources have been talking about MiGs while others have mentioned less sophisticated aircraft and I heard last night that one report says the contents are not planes at all, but rather ground-to-air missiles! The fact is that no one in this country knows what is in the crates, yet the press and public opinion have already blown this up into "the MiG crisis." It's all so appropriate: many people believe that Reagan is itching for an excuse to invade Nicaragua, and somehow a possible boatload of MiGs has acquired the resonance of other pretexts like the Maine, the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin. Secondly, even supposing that the crates do in fact contain a shipment of MiG-21 aircraft, how on earth is that a justification for the U.S. to use force or threats of force against Nicaragua? Nicaragua is a sovereign state and has as much right as any other to arm itself as it chooses. Furthermore, the current Nicaraguan air force consists of a handful of planes, only a fraction of the number belonging to El Salvador and virtually nothing next to the U.S. airpower constantly flying in and out of Honduras during our seemingly endless "manuevers" there. A boatload of Soviet fighters would hardly constitute a threat to U.S. security. For the Nicaraguans, faced with the ongoing attacks by the contras and the constant threat of an invasion on the part of the U.S., an attempt to augment their miniscule air power could hardly be considered an agressive move. I, too, am concerned by the P.R. consequences of what may or may not be in those crates, but I suspect that if the "MiG crisis" weren't happening, some other equally ridiculous "crisis" would be invented in its place. Meanwhile, the U.S. increases its pressure on the Nicaraguans by placing warships within sight of the Nicaraguan coast off Corinto and by sending spy planes (complete with sonic booms) flying over the country, thus prompting widespread panic and forcing the Nicaraguans to divert efforts from the coffee harvest to preparation for an invasion. Whether or not the Reagan administration plans to invade any time soon, it certainly is doing all it can to make life miserable for the Nicaraguans in the meantime. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/12/84)
> (Re: Election Result:More War in '84!) > >> The very day after the election the big news is a Soviet shipment of Mig's > >> to Nicaragua. I think that is the worst possible thing the Soviets could do > >> at this point. Peace groups planning civil disobedience against American > >> actions might consider protests against this action as well. > > A couple of things to respond to here -- > > Why are people taking it for granted that there are really MiGs in those > crates? To quote from a UPI article in this morning's paper: "U.S. officials > still did not have any firm evidence whether the Burkiana [the Bulgarian > freighter in question] carried MiG-21s, and a defense source said other > military equipment may have been packed into MiG-21 crates because of their > availability." > --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") > --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. Nobody will remember the Reagan administrations final quiet admission that there were no MIG 21's--all they will remember is the uproar and the charge. This little episode served its purpose very well. Now the next step is some contrived incident in the Gulf of Fonseca so that Reagan can have his own "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" to legitimate war in Central America. Do not be surprised if such an incident occurs in the next few weeks. During this past "crisis" Barry Goldwater was quick to call for a "firm" response. Despite the War Powers Act I am very much afraid Congress will fall like a pack of cards to this carefully orchestrated hysteria. Have we learned nothing? tim sevener whuxl!orb
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (11/13/84)
Perhaps Mr. Sevener should take some time to watch a few of those Sunday morning news shows on TV. One of the most interesting last Sunday was one in which Senator Moiynahan, and several other former cabinet officials from the Carter era kept expounding that the US should come down on Nicarauga like a ton of bricks. They kept saying it was our duty to bring them to their knees. Strange talk from liberal democrats. Are you a liberal democrat Sevener? Can you say Liberal, Sevener? If it were up to these jokers, we would have been in Managua with the troops weeks ago. They kept beamoaning the fact that the Sandanistas are arming with all types of weapons. As far as I am concerned, they can have all the defensive weapons they want. But, when they start arming with what is a known offensive weapon (MIGs), then I tend to get a little uneasy. Don't you get uneasy Sevener? If you will recall, Sevener, the high grand Poobah of all Sandinistas went to Moscow last summer for the express purpose of buying MIGs. I pointed out then that if they were worried about invasion, they wouldn't be buying MIGs, they would be buying defensive aircraft like some of the French or Isralie planes. You never answered that one Sevener, why? I ask now, Sevener, Why is Nicuragua buying Offensive type weapons? Are they thinking about defending their own country? Or, do they have something else in mind? What would be your reaction if the Sandinistas decided to use their new found military might against say Honduras, or perhaps to help out the rebels in El Salvador? Would this be OK to you, Sevener? From the tone of your articles, it would seem so. T. C. Wheeler
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/14/84)
> Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's > on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its > purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. I wonder why Reagan administration's admission that they were not MIGs didn't get as much coverage by the press as did his accusations earlier that they were. Maybe that says something about the alleged "impartiality" of the American press. - raghu
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/14/84)
> * a show * in which Senator Moiynahan, and several other > former cabinet officials from the Carter era kept expounding that > the US should come down on Nicarauga like a ton of bricks. .... > As far as I am concerned, they can have all the defensive > weapons they want. But, when they start arming with what is a > known offensive weapon (MIGs), then I tend to get a little uneasy. > ... if they were worried about invasion, they wouldn't be buying MIGs, > they would be buying defensive aircraft like some of the French or > Isralie planes. You never answered that one Sevener, why? I ask > now, Sevener, Why is Nicuragua buying Offensive type weapons? > What would be your reaction if the > Sandinistas decided to use their new found military might against > say Honduras, or perhaps to help out the rebels in El Salvador? > T. C. Wheeler I do not agree with Senator Moynihan's support for a militaristic foreign policy. He is the same type of "liberal Democrat" that got us into the War in Vietnam. Precisely the type of Democrat that I fear will support a Reagan War in Central America. On the other hand, if you wish to cite Moynihan, then you might point out that even Moynihan has been very upset with Reagan's actions in that region. I would like to ask you: do you think US policy should support the publishing of manuals encouraging the contras to assasinate public officials and other such heinous acts? Do you think US policy should support CIA mining of other nations harbors? How do these actions promote peace in the region? I do not think the Sandinistas should have MIG's, anymore than the Salvadorans or Hondurans should have advanced US aircraft (which they in fact possess). Yes, I think that the Reagan administration has now come up with a plan to invade Nicaragua: some border incident will be manufactured which will be used to get the Hondurans to ask for our intervention--then the invasion will begin. You, of course will be cheering on our brave young men as they murder and bomb. Let me ask you some questions, Mr. Wheeler: for the past few years Reagan has reiterated over and over that the Nicaraguans should endorse the Contadora Peace Process. The Contadora group is calling for ALL sides to pull out their military presence and support for both Nicaragua and El Salvador. Well, Nicaragua agreed to that process. Now the Reagan administration has opposed it. Why? For the past few years Reagan has again and again called on Nicaragua to hold elections. Well, Nicaragua has held elections. Now the Reagan administration says those elections don't matter. Why? B.E. (Before Election) Reagan said that those publishing the manual calling for assassinations and other acts would be fired. Now Reagan has announced short-term suspensions. Why? The answer is plain to me: More War in '84........ it makes me both sad and worried to see this happening.... tim sevener whuxl!orb *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jdb@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/15/84)
> Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's > on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its > purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. > > Now the next step is > some contrived incident in the Gulf of Fonseca so that Reagan can have his > own "Gulf of Tonkin resolution" to legitimate war in Central America. The San Jose Mercury reported, the same day President Reagan accused Nicaragua of importing MIGs, that the administration was beginning (much more quietly) to ship high- performance combat aircraft to the new US bases in Honduras. Perhaps the MIG story was a cover for this, as well as a pre-pretext to invade. In mid-december, when the rainy season in Nicaragua ends, there will be a "window of vulnerability": As the skies clear, air power becomes more advantagous. (Nicaragua has no significant air force.) As the ground dries, the coastal plain becomes more vulnerable to tank invasion, as does and the broad straight valley from the Gulf of Fonseca to Managua. The US Congress will not be in session for several more weeks. (They re-convene Jan 7.) ie no checks or balances operating. Any bets on when an "incident" takes place? -- Dr Memory ...{amd,ucbvax,ihnp4}!qubix!jdb
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/16/84)
> Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's > on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its > purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. Now I'm riled! I'm really in a warlike mood! Those imaginary MIG's really did the trick! Seriously, you're insulting "the people" (and I'm one of them). Reagan's actions in this case have only weakened his position, as is usually the case with false accusations. Since Reagan himself admitted that it was a false accusation, I think everyone knows it by now.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/18/84)
My own belief is that the whole MiG thing was just the kick-off of a large propaganda campaign to turn U.S. public opinion strongly against Nicaragua in preparation for the return of Congress and a renewed fight for funding for the contras (or worse.) People should seriously ask themselves the following questions: (1) What right does the U.S. have to continue to undermine a foreign government, regardless of whether or not we like how it was chosen? (2) What right does the U.S., now in the middle of the largest peacetime military build-up in history, have to criticize the arms buying policies of another country? Who is George Schultz to decide what the Nicaraguan's "need" for their self-defense? And how has U.S. support for the contras contributed to convincing the Sandinistas that less should be spent on defense? (3) Assuming the goal of current U.S. foreign policy is to overthow the Nicaraguan government, what U.S. interests are furthered by that policy? Why will this be any more effective than similar U.S. actions in Chile, Iran and (to install Somoza) Nicaragua, which have only resulted in brutally repressive dictatorships and a general anti-Americanism? If you assume the goal of U.S. policy is not the overthowal of the Nicaraguan government, explain the active U.S. support for forces whose repeatedly stated goal *is* the overthrowal of the government of Nicaragua. It seems to me that the Reagan policy has no answers to these questions. It is able to go on and on about "Soviet influence" without addressing the real question: what is the best policy to follow in the area?
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (11/19/84)
In article <ut-sally.201> riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: > ... >Secondly, even supposing that the crates do in fact contain a shipment of >MiG-21 aircraft, how on earth is that a justification for the U.S. to use >force or threats of force against Nicaragua? Haven't you heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The issue is not whether Nicaragua has advanced military aircraft, but who is doing the supplying of such aircraft. The Soviet Union would like nothing better than to use Nicaragua as a launching point for operations against El Salvador and other Central American countries. Are we supposed to wait until there are Soviet bases in Central America to do something? I think we have a responsibility to the other nations of Central America to determine as best we can whether those MiGs are there and if they are to dispose of them quickly. >Meanwhile, the U.S. increases its pressure on the Nicaraguans by placing >warships within sight of the Nicaraguan coast off Corinto and by sending spy >planes (complete with sonic booms) flying over the country, thus prompting >widespread panic and forcing the Nicaraguans to divert efforts from the coffee >harvest to preparation for an invasion. Whether or not the Reagan >administration plans to invade any time soon, it certainly is doing all it can >to make life miserable for the Nicaraguans in the meantime. > >--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") >--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle Only because the Nicaraguan government is doing its best to make life miserable for its own people and surrounding nations. We did the same thing to the Cubans during the missile crisis in '62 (when we were directly threatened). Our only problem was that we didn't have the resolve to keep up the pressure during succeeding years are we are now paying the price. Cuba, the Soviet pawn, has been the cause of widespread chaos throughout Africa and Central America. As long as we perceive a threat to our own security we should do what we can to neutralize the threat. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/19/84)
> > Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's > > on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its > > purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. > > I wonder why Reagan administration's admission that they were not MIGs > didn't get as much coverage by the press as did his accusations > earlier that they were. > > Maybe that says something about the alleged "impartiality" of > the American press. > > - raghu Not only has the Reagan administration's admission gotten almost zero airplay UPI just carried reports covered by both TV and newspapers repeating the MIG charge and the Sandinista denial -totally omitting the Reagan administration denial! Such planting of lies and innuendos is precisely what led to Reagan's re-election. As to the ongoing controversy about the "liberal" media, the NY Times reported that over 80% of the nation's newspapers endorsed Reagan, and that those endorsing Reagan represented 70% of the circulation of all newspapers making endorsements. Where is the "liberal" media folks? These figures are not unusual--in fact 70% of newspapers consistently endorse Republicans and the total circulation of those newspapers is undoubtedly close to the 70% in this latest election. (probably about 60%) It's wonderful to live in a true democracy! tim sevener whuxl!orb
berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) (11/19/84)
-------------------------------------
The most significant aspect of the "Migs in the crates" story
put forth by the Reagan Administration was its use as a
trial balloon. The Soviets and the Nicaraguans damn well
knew there were no jet fighters in those crates, so obviously
the target of the campaign was the US media and the American
public. The intent of Reagan's jingoistic lies was to warm us up
for further escalation of the war against Nicaragua.
It was, in essence, an attempt to habituate us to the
possibility of direct intervention in Central America,
and, in the least part, to see how we would react.
As warrior Milo (who surely will be in the front lines) points
out, a ground invasion by US troops into Central America would
have the quickest and nastiest repercussions: American soldiers
would begin to die and the American public would begin to protest
in a variety of ways. Logically it would be a stupid move on
the part of the Administration (but then...they aren't particularly
committed to rational behavior anyway..)
More likely are massive air strikes
against Nicaragua and/or the FMLN zones in El Salvador.
What then? The scenario gets hard to predict. At some point during
the Vietnam war, when the US population, including the ground troops,
was so opposed to the continuation of the war, the Administration
shifted tactics to the "air war" of 1971-73. It only prolonged the
agony, and, from a military point of view, really didn't work.
The important thing, for the case of Central America, is to stop
the madness early on, before the body bags come home, before the
US pilots get shot down (US POWs in rebel areas of Central America!!
---who wants that nightmare??). That means effort now, lobbying,
protest, pressure of all kinds to stop Reagan's attacks against
Nicaragua and El Salvador. People are not quite so aroused yet,
but if the madness can be stopped now, a lot of lives, including
many American lives, will be saved.
---Andy Berman
Sp/4, retired, U.S. Army, 1971-73
(the views expressed here are not necessarily
those of my current and certainly not those
of my former employer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/20/84)
In article <> (T C Wheeler) writes: >if they were worried about invasion, they wouldn't be buying MIGs, >they would be buying defensive aircraft like some of the French or >Isralie planes. You never answered that one Sevener, why? I ask >now, Sevener, Why is Nicuragua buying Offensive type weapons? >Are they thinking about defending their own country? Or, do they >have something else in mind? What would be your reaction if the >Sandinistas decided to use their new found military might against >say Honduras, or perhaps to help out the rebels in El Salvador? >Would this be OK to you, Sevener? From the tone of your articles, >it would seem so. >T. C. Wheeler Gee, T.C., thinking about armed aggression is enough to get anybody irate, but I don't think it's part of T. Sevener's program, so I don't think it's appropriate to bait him. As for alternatives to the MiGs, the Reagan administration will not tolerate arms sales by friendlies to the Nicas. The Israelis would not dream of trying--we don't even allow them to sell Kfirs (GE propulsion technology) to friendly dictatorships! (Of course it probably has *something* to do with preventing competition with Northrop's most excellent TigerShark.) As for MiG-21's being an "offensive" weapon, my poor knowledge leaves me a little puzzled. It was designed (correct me, please, if I'm wrong) as a supersonic interceptor, to counter the SAC bomber force. It is not designed to function well in a ground support role, and offers only 30-mm cannon and AA missiles as armament. (Andrew Cockburn states in _The Threat_: "Displaying its heritage as an interceptor, the MiG-21 has extremely bad cockpit visibility": this doesn't sound like an effective ground support--i.e., offensive-- aircraft.) So why the tiff? Who cares if the Nicas get fast interceptors to replace their P-51's? There *must* be a reason . . . at first I thought, AHA! The threat to our carriers! But no, it doesn't seem as if MiG's can deliver the rather bulky Soviet liquid-fueled cruise missiles, which are probably an order of magnitude less effective than the Exocet anyway. So why? Finally I thought: the target would most likely be the AC-47 gunships we're shipping to El Salvador. Fat and slow, but very effective *offensive* ground-support weapons. MiG's would counter this threat, and in addition the attack helicopters could be assured of safety (from the enemy's air arm, at least) while supporting ground units. (I bet even the export version AC-47's, sans Gatlings, could eat helicopters for breakfast.) Shucks, it looks as if we've made the Nicas nervous with our shipment of "defensive" weapons to El Salvador. Those who complain about their receipt of Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters should recall that the Nicaraguans are fighting the same kind of war the Salvadorans are fighting, and that both parties need massive conventional superiority over the guerillas in order to hold them to a draw. The problem's not that there's no morality in war, but that all sides invariably claim it, Sincerely, Kevin Eric Saunders
vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) (11/21/84)
> As long as we perceive a threat to our own security we should do > what we can to neutralize the threat. A fine specimen of foreign policy doctrine. Please note the keywords "perceive" and "neutralize". And who is "we", may I ask? And what is the definition of "our own security", may I ask? But, I forget: first "we" shoot and then ask such questions. (Got to deal with the "threat" "we" "perceived" first, you see.) Vassos Hadzilacos.
kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/21/84)
In article <> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >Cuba, the Soviet pawn, has been the cause of widespread chaos throughout >Africa and Central America. Funny, but after the dust settled a little in Angola, we found out that it was Fidel's idea to send troops to support the MPLA. Sounds more like a bishop to me :-). Also, if you take a look at John Stockwell's _In Search of Enemies_, you find he has the most curious idea: we never wanted "our side" to win, and would not supply them with the weapons required to do so; Kissinger sought to "embarrass" the Sovs & make their victory "more expensive." Stockwell was director of the covert war in Angola, so his opinion is not irrelevant. In addition, you might note that the Angolan gov't (i.e., the MPLA) has gotten along fine with Gulf Oil, a famous Commie front. Funny, but there's been a lot of home-grown chaos in South Africa recently. Could it be that slavery, whatever you choose to call it, is unpopular *everywhere*? > As long as we perceive a threat to our own security we should do >what we can to neutralize the threat. > "What you mean, *we*, paleface?" Do you mean the Czechoslovakian threat, the "dagger pointed at the heart of Germany?" Or are you referring to the threat of Polish trade unions? The threat of an independent India? Maybe you're referring to the threat posed by labor unions in the Third World? There's a funny thing about "principles" like this: the other side uses them too. I like to think America can do better than that, even though it means I'm agreeing with Jimmy Carter. Patriotically, Kevin Eric Saunders lasspvax!kevin@cornell.arpa
mwm@ea.UUCP (11/27/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ut-sally!riddle / 9:01 pm Nov 17, 1984 */ > Why are people taking it for granted that there are really MiGs in those > crates? I'm not. I hope there aren't, for Nicaraguas sake. > ... some Pentagon sources have been talking about MiGs while others have > mentioned less sophisticated aircraft and I heard last night that one report > says the contents are not planes at all, but rather ground-to-air missiles! There are far better things - for Nicaragua - than MIG 21s that could have been in those crates. More helicopters would be nice. SAMs would be even better. Almost any kind of aircraft would be worthless if there were an American invasion, and serve only to provide an excuse for said invasion before it happens. Aircraft just don't work well as defensive weapons in the face of dominance of the air by the other side. America would undoubtedly have that. (MIG 21s. *chortle* It'd be a turkey shoot.) > Secondly, even supposing that the crates do in fact contain a shipment of > MiG-21 aircraft, how on earth is that a justification for the U.S. to use > force or threats of force against Nicaragua? Nicaragua is a sovereign state > and has as much right as any other to arm itself as it chooses. Don't be silly. America won't grant its citizens such freedoms, why should they grant it to people who are *anywhere* in its sphere of influence? > Furthermore, > the current Nicaraguan air force consists of a handful of planes, only a > fraction of the number belonging to El Salvador and virtually nothing next to > the U.S. airpower constantly flying in and out of Honduras during our > seemingly endless "manuevers" there. A boatload of Soviet fighters would > hardly constitute a threat to U.S. security. No, and they wouldn't present any help in the face of a US invasion. The only "rational" use for such planes would be in a war with another power in the region. How many of them are arming for invasion *without US help*? None? Then the planes must be for a war of aggression. > Meanwhile, the U.S. increases its pressure on the Nicaraguans by placing > warships within sight of the Nicaraguan coast off Corinto and by sending spy > planes (complete with sonic booms) flying over the country, thus prompting > widespread panic and forcing the Nicaraguans to divert efforts from the coffee > harvest to preparation for an invasion. Why bother preparing? If they are invaded, any conventional forces they muster will be negligible (the gorilla forces, on the other hand, ...). Actively preparing for a war only provides an excuse. Actively ignoring what the US is doing would be a demonstration of truly peaceful intentions. Might not do any good, but it might work. > Whether or not the Reagan > administration plans to invade any time soon, it certainly is doing all it can > to make life miserable for the Nicaraguans in the meantime. Sounds like business as usual. <mike
lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (11/27/84)
From: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht):
"Haven't you heard of the Monroe Doctrine?"
------
Teacher, Teacher!!! I've heard of the Monroe Doctrine!
It was a unilateral declaration by the US that it would keep all
European Powers out of the Western Hemisphere. In exchange, the US
AGGREED TO STAY OUT OF EUROPEAN POLITICS.
The Monroe Doctrine might have had some moral (although certainly not
legal) force when it was first promulgated, but it certainly has none now.
Ever since the U.S. decided (was dragged into?) being a world power, it lost
any legitamacy to its claims of paternal influence in Latin America.
The US is the most powerful country in Europe. We have forces only a
few hours from Soviet territory. Where to we get off claiming that the
USSR has no right to an equally offensive posture?
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mcalan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (11/28/84)
>>> > Well, the Reagan administration just admitted that there were not MIG 21's >> > > on the Burkiana. But that won't matter because the charge has served its >> > > purpose-to put people into a warlike mood against Nicaragua. >> > >> > I wonder why Reagan administration's admission that they were not MIGs >> > didn't get as much coverage by the press as did his accusations >> > earlier that they were. >> > >> > Maybe that says something about the alleged "impartiality" of >> > the American press. >> > - raghu >> >> Not only has the Reagan administration's admission gotten almost zero airplay >> UPI just carried reports covered by both TV and newspapers repeating the >> MIG charge and the Sandinista denial -totally omitting the Reagan administration >> denial! ... >> >> tim sevener whuxl!orb > >1) I have not met one person that thinks that the MIG's exist. Not one. >I know many Reagan supporters, however. Please, if anyone out there thinks >Reagan was completely truthful, feel free to speak up. > Ok, i'll speak up. I've been watching, listening and reading about the MIGs affair, including interviews with members of the administration and representatives of Nicaragua. Not once have i heard anyone in the admin. say that there were MIGs on board. Not once have i heard anyone in the admin. say that there weren't MIGs on board. Nor have i heard a member of the media claim that a member of the admin. said either of these things. What they said was that boxes used to ship MIG parts were on the dock next to the ship in Russia. After a cloud bank passed, the boxes were no longer on the dock. Also, the ship went to the lengths of going around the cape, rather than go thru the Panama Canal, where it would have had to declare its cargo. [I heard the following, i believe, on CCN news] The media is speculating that the MIGs were loaded, but then off-loaded in Libya. It's not surprising that an admission that was never made would get zero air time. But that's ok, since the charges that Reagan said that there were MIGs on board and then said there weren't have served their purpose - of putting the readers more in an anit-Reagan mode. sdcrdcf!alan
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (11/29/84)
I saw a recent posting stating that if the Sandanistas were really looking for defensive weapons that they would be buying French or Israelli (sp?) fighters instead of Soviet ones. Well, to paraphrase a paraphrase of Nikita K. in the "Missles of October": "If you have a gun you call it a defensive weapon. If someone points a gun at you, you call it offensive." Granted, different circumstances, but the message still makes sense to me. P.S. Someone (Albrecht?) stated that we can go after anyone fooling with the western hemisphere because of the Monroe Doctrine. Isn't that a little like saying that it was OK for the Soviets to pull-off their abominable attacks on Hungary and Czechoslovakia (sp?) because of the Warsaw Pact? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/04/84)
In article <637@ihopb.UUCP> berman@ihopb.UUCP (Rational Chutzpah) writes: >The important thing, for the case of Central America, is to stop >the madness early on, before the body bags come home, ... >protest, pressure of all kinds to stop Reagan's attacks against >Nicaragua and El Salvador.... > ---Andy Berman Hear, Hear. I agree. Now will all of you who want to lobby, protest, etc against American military involvement in Central America please start coming up with some substantive suggestions about ANY positive actions the US or the Contadora Group or ANYONE can take to relieve the situation there. And don't tell me the domino theory doesn't work, tell it to the people in Cambodia, Laos, etc. The ones who are still alive, anyway. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (12/06/84)
> Hear, Hear. I agree. > > Now will all of you who want to lobby, protest, > etc against American military involvement in Central America please > start coming up with some substantive suggestions about ANY positive > actions the US or the Contadora Group or ANYONE can take to relieve > the situation there. And don't tell me the domino theory doesn't > work, tell it to the people in Cambodia, Laos, etc. The ones who are > still alive, anyway. > -- > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 How about sign the Contadora treaty and get US military forces the hell out of Honduras. If the Nicaraguans invade, which would not happen (they have enough problems in building railroads, feeding their people, getting spare parts, etc.), their forces would not last long against our vaunted military might. It is up to the US, as the aggressor in this case, to be the first to stop the "cycle of pain", to quote J. Jackson. Let's certainly not let corporations like TRW come up with alternatives, being one of the larger military contractors, the largest holder of credit information, etc. Note that I am not maligning Jeff, only his employing company. Damne'd Be, -- 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