ryan@fremen.DEC (11/01/84)
seen go by lately, and responses to the messages sent directly to me. The emphasis is on foreign policy, which is the area in which I'm closest to Mondale. Afghanistan: At least Carter made some attempts to affect the situation (admittedly of doubtful wisdom and effectiveness) - the Olympic boycott, grain embargo, attempts to slow down the Western Europe pipeline. Reagan has taken no action (and hasn't even bothered to mention it much, except to blame Carter for letting it happen). Iran: The only thing different that Carter could have done was attempt a full-scale rescue operation at great risk to the lives of the hostages. Reagan, not having any such restrictions on his movements, has done nothing but offer the Islamic Jihad sitting ducks to blow up at will. This is a strong leader? Grenada: The military response was an over-reaction to the situation (and I seriously doubt it would have happened if the Marines hadn't just been blown to smithereens). The Americans on the island were in no danger - the rebels wouldn't have touched them for fear of exactly what did happen anyway. If you look at the recent history of Latin America, you'll see that the only people who commit atrocities against Americans are the ones supported by the American government (they know they can get away with it). Our enemies in the region wouldn't dare give us an excuse to go in and kick their asses (of course, Reagan doesn't believe we need excuses). El Salvador: This is one place where I would rate Reagan at a B or B+. Duarte is the right man to support - he's the only one who appears capable of gaining the respect of the majority of the Salvadoran people. I even agree in the stationing of American advisors - AS LONG AS the numbers are kept small (perhaps 100 max) and they do nothing but teach the Salvadoran army how to combat the guerrilas (none of this flying over rebel positions nonsense - it's up to the Salvadorans to take the active roles themselves). I think the US should try to encourage Duarte to exert more control over the military and pay more attention to human rights, but the situation is improving. I'm hoping that this will prove to be an example of the kind of policy the US should pursue with allies threatened by internal strife being taken advantage of by socialist/communist elements. Nicaragua: On the other hand... What if the Sandinista put mines in San Francisco Bay (they have as much right to do that as we did to mine their harbors)? They aren't exactly saints, but the current government is almost universally preferred to Somoza (we're very fortunate that our support for Somoza didn't produce the anti-American hatred that developed in Iran). We have no right to try to topple a national government against the will of its people. If we had offered them support in the first place, they'd be on our side (I really think they'd prefer American to Soviet support - they just took what was available). I see nothing wrong with the US supporting a gov't with socialistic tendencies if they show respect for human rights (France, after all, has a Socialist president - as far as I know the CIA hasn't tried to topple him:-). As for the alleged arms supplies for Salvadoran rebels, where's the evidence? If we had captured Nicaraguans ferrying supplies to Salvador, I'm sure the Administration would have been sure to publicize it. All nations have the right to self-determination (whether Americans like their choices or not). From letters to me: > If he, and his advisors, felt that a pro-Soviet gov't were going > to come out ahead, they would probably send in US troops. And > they would probably run it as a military, not a political, operation Exactly. > Half-hearted military moves are military suicide, as we have seen. You're right - if you're going to use military moves by all means be sure they'll work - but I'd rather have someone in the White House who considers military force a last resort than someone who'll shoot first and ask questions later (see Grenada). > If Mondale reacts at all like Carter, we might be in for greater > loss of life with Mondale. Let's compare: Carter - All hostages released unharmed. Four men lost in aborted rescue mission (yes, I agree that was stupid, but ...) Reagan - Marines and embassy personnel in Beirut, soldiers in Grenada: Hundreds, I've lost track of the exact number (... this is stupider) > Many countries and terrorist groups will have nuclear weapons soon... > The only solution I can see is a strong BMD that protects people, > not silos. (I haven't seen the initials BMD before, so I'll assume they mean Ballistic Missile Defense..) What good does a BMD do in the case of a terrorist organization or nation such as Iran or Libya getting the bomb? These groups are not going to have ballistic missiles; they are going to plant the bomb someplace and set it off. They could plant a bomb somewhere in the US, or (as I think most likely) near a US Embassy or military base (Can't you just see the Islamic Jihad salivating at the prospect - no more driving past the guards, not that that's been any challenge in the past). No, a BMD is only useful against a full-scale Soviet attack. My main concern is over a terrorist nuking which could draw the large nuclear powers into an exchange (whether a limited nuclear war is possible or not, it won't be a lot of fun). > Mondale is opposed to the idea altogether. In fact, what worries me > most about Mondale is that he seems quite anti-technology (in > Congress he voted several times to abolish NASA. See net.space for > comments on that subject... > Reagan ... puts money into the military-industrial complex and the > business world, which, like it or not, is a major source of > technological innovation. I don't read net.space and I'm not familiar with Mondale's alleged anti- technology stance - could you tell me more about this? Actually, I think an anti-technology stance is defensible - maybe I'll provoke a discussion on this (let's save it till after the election dust clears, though). > Finally, considering Reagan's ailing health, it might be better to > think of the election as Mondale vs. Bush - Bush seems to be more > of a realist than Reagan. I don't think Reagan is ailing (physically). However, he never was all that quick, and he seems to have lost a step or two in the last 4 years. How many more will he lose by '88? As for the prospect of Bush as president, a co-worker who is a native of the Maine town where Bush maintains his legal residence says she knows him and (along with her fellow townspeople) considers him an idiot. (From the other letter I got): > I really do not believe giving more money to the government will > have much affect on reducing spending. The only way has come down > to cutting them off at the pocketbook. If a child is learning the > value of money, and spends every dime on candy, then asks for more > money for gas for his minibike, do you give him more money? A better analogy would be a kid who has borrowed money (for gas?) and doesn't have the cash to pay it back. He'll find that there are two ways (other than borrowing more, as Reagan has done) to repay the loan: 1. Increase income (mow more lawns) 2. Decrease spending (don't use so much gas) He'll find that the quickest way to repay the loan is to do both (Mondale and Reagan each want to stick to one - what I'm afraid of is that instead of compromising and doing both the two parties will end up being stubborn and doing neither). All of which goes to show that analogies are pretty worthless. > Is a vote for Reagan a "no" vote for Mondale? Not if you write in Mondale for VP :-) There's a very important issue (vitally important, even) that has been largely ignored by the candidates and their supporters: the environment. On this subject I have but one thing to say: WATT! Before responding to some things I've seen on the net, I'll say something which may be so unfashionable that no one will ever take me seriously again, but I do believe in time I'll be vindicated: Jimmy Carter wasn't so bad, after all. When you think about it, what went wrong for Carter? A. The economy (it got almost as bad as Reagan's first two years!). I've said before, the influence over the economy by the President is greatly exagerated. B. The hostage crisis (seriously, now, what would Reagan have done about it?) > If you really believe that Reagan has been screwing up the country > for the last 4 years, the shit should hit the fan within two years, > no matter who is elected Yes, it will hit the fan soon, but I'm not interested in assigning the blame to the candidate I oppose (and I am not a Democrat, so I have no interest in making them look good in '88), I'm interested in minimizing the amount of shit that hits the fan. > Mondale's high blood pressure would probably knock him out. It's actually not that serious, and well under control with medication. He's less likely than Reagan to develop serious health problems in the next four years. RE the discussion on nuclear war casualties: Perhaps the world would be blown up. Perhaps it wouldn't (but even Milo can't absolutely guarantee it). I'd really prefer not to find out. One more general point on the discussions I've seen in net.politics. Let's PLEASE stop the name-calling (fuzzy/pointy headed librarals, the Senile One, etc.). One doesn't have to be a pinko bleeding heart liberal w(h)imp to vote for Mondale or a bigoted rich selfish militaristic a*****e to vote for Reagan - trying to pretend otherwise only discredits your own position. Mike Ryan "This ain't really life, ain't really life, ain't really nothing but a movie." - Gil-Scott Heron