miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/30/84)
On the subject of Grenada: >As for the students, I would >not question protecting their safety, but I have yet to have heard >anything even suggesting they really were in danger. Listen to the >students themselves. >David Rubin I *have* listened to the students, have you? Just last Thursday, Bob Dean, one of the medical students rescued from Grenada, spoke here on our campus. He told frightening stories of 24 hour SHOOT ON SIGHT curfews, no drinkable water supplies, rationed food, military patrols by Cuban "construction workers" carrying Soviet made AK 47 rifles, executions of political opponents and their relatives, and a "government" which told the world the students were free to leave while at the same time denying them access to all forms of air or sea evacuation facilities. They had to boil what little water they had in storage to drink in order to stay alive. Fortunately, we have a president that believes in freedom and a military that is willing to die so that others may enjoy what, through their deaths, they lose. Too many people have died because of the mistakes of leaders like Walter Mondale and Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain. History, anyone? A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/31/84)
"He who is ignorant of History is doomed to repeat it." -approximate quote of Santanyana >On the subject of Grenada: >>As for the students, I would >>not question protecting their safety, but I have yet to have heard >>anything even suggesting they really were in danger. Listen to the >>students themselves. >>David Rubin >I *have* listened to the students, have you? Just last Thursday, Bob Dean, >one of the medical students rescued from Grenada, spoke here on our campus. He >told frightening stories of 24 hour SHOOT ON SIGHT curfews, no drinkable water >supplies, rationed food, military patrols by Cuban "construction workers" >carrying Soviet made AK 47 rifles, executions of political opponents and their >relatives, and a "government" which told the world the students were free to >leave while at the same time denying them access to all forms of air or sea >evacuation facilities. They had to boil what little water they had in storage >to drink in order to stay alive. >Fortunately, we have a president that believes in freedom and a military that >is willing to die so that others may enjoy what, through their deaths, they >lose. Too many people have died because of the mistakes of leaders like Walter >Mondale and Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain. History, anyone? >A. Ray Miller If you read ALL of the article I posted, you'd have noticed that I said that the students had good reason to be damned scared. However, having to boil your water and go hungry for the period of the coup does not present any real danger; as for the curfew, it was not directed against Americans, but was applied to all of Grenada. Political opponents were executed and curfew violators were shot, but the same was true in Chile. There, it was suggested that Americans simply endure the discomfort and observe the curfews until the situation stabilized. As far as charges for appeasement, let me state what should be obvious: the threat to our prosperity and our freedom does not originate in the social upheavals in Latin America, but from the Soviet dictatorship. In this regard, Reagan has not been firmer (in action; he does bluster more, though) than the previous "vacillating" Democratic administration. Whereas Carter imposed a grain embargo and boycotted the Soviet Olympics in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Reagan lifted all restrictions and committed the US to never taking these actions again, even as the Soviets were compelling the crushing of Solidarity in Poland. Whereas Carter placed primary defensive emphasis on our conventional forces, the one area where we really are behind the Soviets, the Reagan administration has actually reduced expenditures for operations and supply, even as it races to build weapons (e.g. the MX and the B-1) which do not make us more secure. Whereas Carter was able to get our NATO allies to reach a consensus on real increases in defense spending and the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Europe, Reagan nearly destroyed that consensus with the weight of his bluster. And to top it all off, Reagan suggests turning over Star-Wars technology to the Soviets if it proves to be succesful, as if the technology would have no application to other systems, conventional and nuclear, which are not affected by a Star Wars defense. Tell me about appeasement. Reagan may be willing to flex those muscles against local revolutionaries, but with the Soviets, it's always business as usual. It is necessary for our nation to have troops brave enough and capable enough to defend our freedom. However, it is both a squandering of our resources and an incredible injustice to them if they die for a cause which does not serve freedom. Such was the case in Lebanon, and I am yet to be convinced it was not the case in Grenada. Being "Communist" does not automatically mean that a country or movement threatens our security or interests. China is Communist. Yugoslavia is Communist. In the final analysis, governments will act in their perceived self-interest, and, if confronted with a CHOICE between conflict with the US or the acceptance, by them and the US, of national sovereignties, will usually choose the latter. If they do not, I will admit conflict is inevitable. But if they are never given the choice, because we insist all revolutions are Marxist and therefore bad, they themselves will have no choice but to seek aid from another power. Then we will have brought about a real threat by insisting upon an imaginary one, for the danger is not local revolution but dependency upon the Soviets. And remember: some of our best allies our socialists. Why socialism is acceptable in Europe and automatically equated with Communism and Soviet control in Latin America remains an inpenetrable mystery for those who do not see Soviet inspiration behind every objection to social inequity. The history of the 1930's clearly illustrates the dangers of appeasement. We ought not to think, though, that history becan with the Treaty of Versailles. There are other lessons to be learned. Just as appeasement encouraged the aggressor and led to WWII, jingoism and unwillingness to compromise differences brought us WWI. Both extremes are to be avoided. Being labeled a "liberal" is not an indication that one is an appeaser (after all, it was those "liberals" who saw enough of a threat in the Soviet Union to begin the cold war), and Mondale is no Chamberlain. I hope that Reagan is no Bethemann, and will not involve us in a war not in our own interests, but in those of a desperate "ally" and made possible by the granting of some ill-considered "blank check". Remember that the German political establishment did not want war in 1914, but unwisely gave unconditional assurances to an Austrian state which was probably doomed anyway, and certainly desperate. History is not an Aesop's fable with a single moral; it holds many lessons and illustrative examples. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (11/02/84)
One of the medical students who was "rescued" in Grenada a year ago was on our
campus last week, too. I heard him speak and wasn't much impressed. If you
ask me, the Republicans have put on much more exciting rallies.
The student who came to our campus to talk gave a decidedly unconvincing
account of the danger he was supposedly in, a danger that apparently
intensified only after the start of the invasion that was supposed to
"liberate" him. He seemed to have a few canned details ready to tell us, the
same details mentioned by other students from the "Liberation Day" tour in
news interviews the day before, but he wasn't very good at answering questions
or showing that he had much understanding of the events in Grenada beyond what
he'd been coached to say. One of my friends went up to him after his speech
to find out his opinion of the illegality of the invasion under the OAS
charter; he'd never heard of such a thing and didn't know what my friend was
talking about!
Here's what one of his fellow students had to say [reprinted from our campus
newspaper, "The Daily Texan," 10/26/84]:
As one of the medical students in Grenada at this time last year, I am
deeply concerned about the so-called "Student Liberation Days" being
organized on college campuses by right-wing groups, purportedly to
celebrate the United States invasion of Grenada.
Whether my life and those of my fellow medical students were endangered by
the coup that overthrew Maurice Bishop is very much open to question. It
is clear, however, that our "liberation" by the Reagan administration came
at a terrible cost: dozens of young American, Cuban and Grenadian lives.
That is a fact that the people organizing the "Student Liberation Day" may
not want you to know. Nor may they want you to know the course they'd like
to see our nation follow in other parts of Latin America, namely such
places as Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras....
Instead of celebrating the liberation of students, their actions only
encourage the decimation of students. The publicity from their rallies, if
not countered immediately, encourages the worst tendencies of our
government to believe it will be politically acceptable to send us off to
war...
Morty Weissfelner
St. George's University
The fact is, these Grenadian invasion celebrations were nothing but another
campaign effort by our friends of the far right. Though supposedly non-
partisan, they were funded by various conservative foundations with decidedly
partisan ties (the principal backer shares its offices with the Heritage
Foundation) and the local hosts on campus were student Republican groups.
Fortunately the rally at UT, at least, backfired -- three fourths of the crowd
that turned out were there to condemn the invasion, not celebrate it. When
the Young Republicans started handing out flags, they were enthusiastically
hoisted into the air atop signs saying "No More Grenadas" and "U.S. Out of
Central America."
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlemyers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/02/84)
> Fortunately, we have a president that believes in freedom and a military that > is willing to die so that others may enjoy what, through their deaths, they > lose. Too many people have died because of the mistakes of leaders like Walter > Mondale and Neville "Peace in our time" Chamberlain. History, anyone? > > A. Ray Miller > Univ Illinois Guess we'll have to learn to like leaders like Ronald Reagan and Kaiser "Peace Through Strength" Wilhelm III. J. Deane Myers Univ Wisconsin
myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/02/84)
> One of the medical students who was "rescued" in Grenada a year ago was on our > campus last week, too. I heard him speak and wasn't much impressed. If you > ask me, the Republicans have put on much more exciting rallies. > > The fact is, these Grenadian invasion celebrations were nothing but another > campaign effort by our friends of the far right. Though supposedly non- > partisan, they were funded by various conservative foundations with decidedly > partisan ties (the principal backer shares its offices with the Heritage > Foundation) and the local hosts on campus were student Republican groups. > Fortunately the rally at UT, at least, backfired -- three fourths of the crowd > that turned out were there to condemn the invasion, not celebrate it. When > the Young Republicans started handing out flags, they were enthusiastically > hoisted into the air atop signs saying "No More Grenadas" and "U.S. Out of > Central America." > > --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") > --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle The "celebration" turned out much the same way here at UWisc. Though touted as a non-partisan event, the head of the national organization sponsoring it is the national head of the College Republicans, and the local organizing team was led by the local president of the College Republicans (Nick Furman). Grenadian medical students, like folks anywhere, all have their own political agendas. I recall seeing reports in the New York Times last year from students who felt more danger from the invasion. We should also remember that the airport was reopened the day of the invasion, an American ex-diplomat left the island by plane that day, and that it was the surrounding islands which were refusing to send planes on to Grenada. Jeff Myers
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (11/03/84)
>Fortunately, we have a president that believes in freedom Correction: in war, intimidation and "legal" terrorism >and a military that is willing to die... Correction: willing to kill -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
wall@ucbvax.ARPA (Steve Wall) (11/03/84)
Now that Grenada is a little over a year behind us, here is what I have concluded from the information I've seen: 1) The students - I really don't know if the students were in danger, but I was somewhat skeptical of the stories that were told after seeing the president of the American Univ. switch his story from "we weren't in danger" to "our lives were in danger". He switched his story after he had been back in the U.S. for a few days. 2) Grenadians - At first I thought that the Grenadians would be against the invasion. I thought that they would see the big U.S. government killing their revolution. On the 1 year anniversary of the invasion, I saw two TV reports on "Grenada Today". The first was a report by Charlene Hunter- Gault of the McNiel-Leherer News Hour. She was one of the first reporters on Grenada following the invasion, and she seemed to cast a dark shadow on the invasion. BUT, a year later, she went back, and she was very surprised to find that the Grenadians supported the invasion. She was clearly uneasy reporting this (perhaps she was expecting something else). She said, "Whenever I referred to the invasion as an 'invasion', the local people were very quick to tell me that they saw it as a 'rescue mission'". Now clearly many of the people who would see the U.S. mission as an "invasion" are in jail, were killed during the invasion, or are staying out of sight, but most Grenadians were very scared when the people who killed Bishop also started to kill several hundred people. The other report was by a TIME correspondent who reported pretty much the same thing, although he noted that there is some uncertainty in the minds of most Grenadians about the outcome and ramifications of the upcoming elections. 3) U.S. Military- If the U.S. feels great about their "military success" in Grenada, I would have to point out that the military operation itself was a cakewalk; the opposition was totally outarmed by the U.S.. I don't think the U.S. could have the same "easy" success against a country like Nicaragua (that's why we have someone else fighting our war there!). Also, the troops who participated in the Grenada operation were supposed to be on their way to Beirut; no doubt that the success of the Grenada operation raised moral in the military. Since Beirut, this was needed very badly. 4) The future - No doubt the U.S. used Grenada as an example to Nicaragua about what they might face if they piss the U.S. off too much. The U.S. won't send their own troops to Nicaragua until the Contras run out of steam. If the U.S. does invade Nicaragua, there will be a helluva lot more heat from other countries (Contradora countries, European countries), and the fight will be MUCH more bloody. The U.S. will lose many men, and the same goes for Nicaragua. Plus, there will be plenty of people who will regroup and fight back against the U.S./New Nicaraguan Gov. It won't be as easy as Grenada! To sum up, I feel pretty much like Charlene Hunter-Gault felt; I opposed the invasion of Grenada (and still do on some issues), but hearing the local people speak positively about the "rescue mission" made me stop and think. If the U.S. invades Nicaragua, I will be extremely upset; there are ways to avoid a war in Central America, but the Reagan Ad. seems set on avoiding diplomatic channels and pursuing military channels. The U.S. will not settle for anything less than the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. I don't think you'll find too many Nicaraguans saying that the U.S. invasion is a "rescue mission"..... Steve Wall wall@ucbarpa ..!ucbvax!wall
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/03/84)
Grenada was a case of direct Soviet and Cuban sponsorship of a military coup. Documents have shown that the revolutionary government in Grenada had extensive guidance and support from the Soviet Union, and there were Cuban troops on the island. If the invasion wasn't a case of defending our own self-interests in the region I don't know what is. Also, the communist revolution wasn't a case of the overthrow of a regieme that the people had a real gripe against, like the revolution in Nicaragua, but was a case of a few military leaders seizing power with foreign backing. I think it is pretty hard to accuse the U.S. of "imperialism" in a case like this. Wayne
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/03/84)
> Guess we'll have to learn to like leaders like Ronald Reagan and Kaiser > "Peace Through Strength" Wilhelm III. There was no "Kaiser Wilhelm III", and in any case, the 1st World War wasn't Germany's fault but Austria's... Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/05/84)
When I first heard of the Grenada invasion, I thought that for almost
the first time, Reagan had done something right, by showing that a bloody
group of murderers could not take over a small country with impunity.
But then he started giving reasons for the invasion, and I realized
that although he may have done the right thing, it was for all the
wrong reasons, which meant that the important message was not there.
Hence, only the mass of Grenadians benefited, rather than the world
at large.
Incidentally, you may not have noticed that since the invasion, the
caretaker government has reversed many of the Bishop government's
good policies, such as trying to make the island agriculturally
self-supporting. Eric Gairy may well make it back to power and
re-install the goon squads and state terror that led to the Bishop
revolution in the first place.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmyers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (11/05/84)
> > Guess we'll have to learn to like leaders like Ronald Reagan and Kaiser > > "Peace Through Strength" Wilhelm III. > > There was no "Kaiser Wilhelm III", and in any case, the 1st World War wasn't > Germany's fault but Austria's... > > Wayne You can't lay all the blame for WWI on Austria! Germany could have refused to back Austria's invasion of Serbia. One can't lay the blame for WWI on any one country, in my opinion, but on the inflexible system of alliances set up before the war, and the perceived need on all sides to save face. Jeff P.S. Sorry about the III. Must have had the next hullabaloo on my mind...
asente@Cascade.ARPA (11/06/84)
In the words of the immortal Ian Shoals: "If the president wanted to rescue a bunch of medical students, why didn't he invade Harvard?" -paul asente I am better now. Quack quack quack quack quack.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (11/09/84)
So rather than a "Soviet-sponsored" government, Grenada now has a U.S.-sponsored one. Big deal. The Third World is getting pretty damn tired of being considered pawns in these superpower struggles.
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/18/84)
> > The Third World is getting pretty damn tired of being considered pawns > in these superpower struggles. Well Said! You took the words right out of my mouth. I wish BOTH the Soviet Union and America would just mind their own affairs and let the third world peoples decide for themselves how they want to run their countries.
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (11/19/84)
Recorrection: willing to die *and* kill for Der Fuehrer Rhonald Rheagan 8->
--
A. J. Rowley
"see, no problem!"
There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark....
- Pink Floyd, "Eclipse"