js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/24/84)
I'm totally amazed at the way people have blown up one offhand comment,
which was clearly intended as a joke. We've heard statements like: Anyone
who would even joke about a thing like that must have a deep and abiding
hatred for everyone on this planet and must secretly want to push THE button.
Cut me a break, people. I'm not even a Reagan supporter, after watching
most of the republican convention. People have joked about nuclear war before
without secretly desiring it. How many of you remember a joke from Saturday
Night Live that went something like this:
Chevy Chase (I think), as news announcer:
"Moscow in flames, retaliatory missiles on the way. Details at
eleven."
So what's the reason that when Chevy Chase makes a joke like this everyone
laughs, and when RR makes a very similar joke, bunches of people think he
really wants nuclear war? I hear what you're saying: "But Chevy couldn't start
a nuclear war, and Ronnie can. That's the difference." So, you thought
Chevy wanted a nuclear war too, since he joked about it. But you didn't mind
since Chevy didn't have access to THE button. Bulls**t. Of course you didn't
think Chevy wanted war. But you think Ronnie does? Just on the basis of that
joke?
I submit that most of you Ronnie flamers DON'T really think Ronnie wants
to blow the world away. I think you just saw this joke as a way of convincing
others that RR is a warmonger.
Apologies to Chevy Chase if I've incorrectly identified him as the SNL actor
who did the above quoted joke. I'm not absolutely sure it was him. After
all, I don't want him to get a lot of nasty mail about that obviously tasteless
and vile nuclear war joke.
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j
Besides, as someone else pointed out, there are enough terrible nasty things
in RR's PLATFORM to flame about, without wasting time on a joke.david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/25/84)
About the difference between Reagan joking about nuclear war and Chevy
Chase doing so: Reagan's job is not to get a good laugh, but to
project an image of responsible American leadership of the Western
alliance. If Reagan cannot or will not put his political duties above
his desire to entertain, Reagan ought to retire from the Presidency
and instead become a regular on Saturday Night Live...
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (08/26/84)
>I'm totally amazed at the way people have blown up one offhand comment, >which was clearly intended as a joke. To some extent I think this criticism is valid. I think the media often has an unfortunate tendency to blow up unthinking remarks to greater importance than they deserve. Unfortunately coupled with this is the media's tendency to neglect actual issues and actions which are of far more importance than mere remarks. Reagan's tasteless and foolish nuclear war joke has been foccused upon by those who support arms control rather than a runaway arms race because it illustrates succinctly the dangerous effects of Reagans arms policies and mindset. Reagan's joke got prominent attention --but have the media paid any attention to the reduction of nuclear lead time from a half hour to ten minutes with the deployment of Cruise missiles in Europe? Have the media paid any attention to the Reagan administration's intentions to openly violate the SALT II agreement in 1985 by deploying an additional Trident submarine? Have the media ever mentioned along with the Reagan administration's accusations of Soviet treaty violations that the Reagan administration has never brought a single charge of such violations to the Standing Consultative Committee? During the Iranian hostage situation ( was it really a "crisis"??) the media every day reported the "150th day of captivity for the Iranian hostages". Have they ever pointed out the far more important "150th day in which we are ten minutes away from nuclear war"? Given the media's attention to trivializing abbreviation of issues those people arguing for some sensibility in the current arms race must focus Americans attention on the nuclear issue (unfortunately) by the means the media understands and will cover. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb BEll Labs, Whippany
ix241@sdccs6.UUCP (08/28/84)
Tim's reference to a 10 minute warning time with the deployment of cruise missiles in Europe is wrong. The warning time for nuclear war has been roughly 10 to 15 minutes since the deployment of Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles years ago. Cruise missiles fly subsonic, too. They would have to be based awfully close to reach their targets in 30 minutes or so. I think he means the Pershing ballistic missiles that are deployed in Europe with the Cruise Missiles. Ronnie has already said we will pull them out if the Soviet SS20's are pulled as well. It is sad to have an arm race. But the US and Europe have been walking while the USSR has been racing. US: 3 new missiles in the last ten years. USSR: 6(?) in the last ten years. Be realistic when you get angry about policies and such you disagree with. John Testa UCSD Chemistry sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/28/84)
Cruise missiles have NOT cut the nuclear lead time to ten minutes.
GLCM's take well over a half-hour to reach Soviet targets from Western
Europe, not ten minutes.
Sevener confused them with Pershings, which have a lead time of as
little as six minutes.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/04/84)
From: ix241@sdccs6.UUCP (John Testa):
It is sad to have an arm race. But the US and Europe have been
walking while the USSR has been racing. US: 3 new missiles in the last
ten years. USSR: 6(?) in the last ten years. Be realistic when you
get angry about policies and such you disagree with.
The real point, of course, is not how many new missiles each side added in the
last ten years but the total balance. There is substantial evidence that the
total balance is roughly equal. Counts comparing Soviet Bloc strength to U.S.
strength in Europe are calculated to deceive; what of the French force frappe
and the British nukes? Include these and the so-called Soviet advantage melts.
As to conventional strength, it is far from clear that there is a Soviet advantage.
For example, the Soviets have more tanks, but NATO has more anti-tank weapons.
And the Soviet tanks weren't exactly marvels of stength when used in the Middle
East. The Israelis were able to basically destroy every one they hit with U.S.-
made anti-tank weapons.
The question never answered by the amateur strategists is why in heaven the
Soviets would ever WANT to invade Western Europe. They can barely keep Poland
under control, and the East Germans are starting to make frightening gestures
towards reunification. One could argue that the quickest way to destroy the
Soviet Bloc is for them to invade Western Europe. It seems to me that Soviet
defense policy is best understood as (a) building a protective wall around the
Soviet Union, which their current satellites are sufficient for provided the U.S.
doesn't make any threatening moves and (b) exploiting advantage where it appears
in Africa and the Mideast. It is far from evident to me that Soviet policy is
directed at an invasion of Western Europe; far more likely is that it is directed
at the fear of an invasion FROM Western Europe. Note that I'm not defending
Soviet policy, just trying to understand it. To me, satellites in East Europe
are obnoxious. So are satellites in Central America.
Mike Kellyfaustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/06/84)
I agree, the current policy of the USSR is probably not directed towards invading Western Europe. What we do have to keep our eyes on, though, is their policies towards the Middle East. Today Afghanistan, tomorrow Iran, and the next day Saudi Arabia... After the fall of the Shah this area has become the least defended and most valuable areas for Soviet expansion. Western Europe is just a diversion, at best... Wayne
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (09/07/84)
Re: worrying about the Soviets in the Middle East. You missed my point. Soviet foreign policy is to surround the USSR with satellites and exploit advantages. Afghanistan is not an indication of some mythical yearning for a warm water port, as the conservatives had us believe in 1979. Rather, it was a chance for the Soviets to consolidate their leadership in what was already a satellite. Chances are those who suggested going in have long since fallen from power within the USSR, since it was at least a bad miscalculation. One needs to look at reality, not rhetoric. Mike Kelly
ix241@sdcc6.UUCP (ix241) (09/07/84)
Soviet policy has reiterated Tzarist policy concerning foreign affairs since Lenin took over. That policy has been articulated in _The Prince_ and can be summed up by saying that they will only feel safe if they control any group that could possibly disagree with what they want to do. John Testa UCSD Chemistry sdcc6!ix241
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (09/10/84)
<...> >Soviet policy has reiterated Tzarist policy concerning foreign affairs >since Lenin took over. That policy has been articulated in _The Prince_ >and can be summed up by saying that they will only feel safe if they >control any group that could possibly disagree with what they want to >do. A perfect description indeed of US foreign policy! -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/11/84)
>> Soviet policy has reiterated Tzarist policy concerning foreign affairs >> since Lenin took over. That policy has been articulated in _The Prince_ >> and can be summed up by saying that they will only feel safe if they >> control any group that could possibly disagree with what they want to >> do. > A perfect description indeed of US foreign policy! > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet I wasn't aware that the US had recently invaded any "allies" for disagreeing with it on political matters. The only US military actions in the last 40 years have been in response to invasions by Soviet troops or agents. (And taking over a country at the "invitation" of the local Soviet puppet Communist Party does count as an invasion.) Wayne
faustus@ucbvax.ARPA (Wayne Christopher) (09/11/84)
>> ... But the difference is that if we >> lose, everybody loses, but if we win, everybody wins, >> including all the people under Communist control right now. > I don't agree. First of all, I don't think the people in El > Salvador or Nicaragua will be very glad if you win. Do you think they enjoy the Communist terrorist groups, in El Salvador, and the government of Nicaragua? The reason we have to support other, arguably as bad, groups is that they are the only ones with a chance of effectivly opposing the Communist groups. And if you think that Communist governments can be benevolent, look at the Khmer Rouge in Cambodea. Over a period of a few years in power they killed almost half of the population of the country. Don't you think that it's worthwhile trying to keep people like this out of power? Wayne
steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (09/17/84)
> We still spend billions to keep europe in peace. > Despite the Soviet Union, there is more democracy on that contenent than > there ever has been in its entire history; all inspired and nurtured by > America. [I think he means it!] ... > It hurts even more to realize that many of the young europeans don't even > thank us. I would, on behalf of all of us, like to thank you very, very much indeed. NOW will you take the Cruise missiles away? :-)
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (09/17/84)
>What do you call a country (U.S) who invades Granada, which doesn't look at >things the way U.S. does on the invitation of Granada's neighbors??????? 1) I call them the same thing the Grenadian people call them: Liberators. 2) There wasn't much of a govn in Grenada when the Americans landed. Things were so dangerous people could hardly leave their houses. 3) Grenada's neighbors invited the US to invade, because they saw a clear danger to democracy and peace in their countries. They were protecting themselves from turning into El Salvadors.
myers@uwvax.ARPA (Jeff Myers) (09/18/84)
>Whatever you are trying to say, if you think that it was a case of the >big bad US invading poor Grenada, you are far off the mark. The coup in >Grenada was a Cuban/Soviet sponsored takeover, and Grenada's neighbors >were rightly worried about giving Cuba another base from which to launch >terrorist attacks against them. You bought Ronnie's disinformation hook, line, and sinker, no? The fact is that the Cuban people, and especially Castro, were very enamoured of, and friendly with Maurice Bishop, who was murdered by the counter-revolutionary militarists. Immediately after the coup, Castro bemoaned the fact that his friend Bishop had been killed and predicted that the US would take advantage of this excuse (the military takeover) to invade Grenada. Cuba refused to give any military aid to the military government even tho it was, of course, requested. The Cuban workers who were there when Bishop was killed were ordered to only defend themselves if attacked. Reagan and his cabinet clearly *lied* about several aspects of the invasion operation, and it wasn't because they didn't know what was happening. The biggest lie was that the purpose of the operation was to rescue US citizens (who were put in danger BY the invasion) -- the "liberation" of Grenada had been practiced two years before on an island off Puerto Rico. Also, we occupied the island rather than getting our people off and pulling out. Also the stories about large quantities of Cuban soldiers and the mass grave being found, both lies. The quantity and distribution of Cuban citizens was found to be exactly the same as the Cuban government had reported to Washington. Yes, the military takeover in Grenada was as reprehensible as that by f*cking Pinochet in Chile. However, this was a personal power play by those involved in the plot (in my opinion). Why would Cuba or the Soviet Union threaten the already excellent relations they had with Grenada when they *knew* that the US (I hesitate to say "we") was spoiling for a chance to eradicate creeping socialism in all its manifestations? Jeff Myers
myers@uwvax.UUCP (09/18/84)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site uwvax.ARPA Message-ID: <429@uwvax.ARPA> Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 10:56:43 EDT Date-Received: Thu, 20-Sep-84 08:04:46 EDT s joke Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 37 >Whatever you are trying to say, if you think that it was a case of the >big bad US invading poor Grenada, you are far off the mark. The coup in >Grenada was a Cuban/Soviet sponsored takeover, and Grenada's neighbors >were rightly worried about giving Cuba another base from which to launch >terrorist attacks against them. You bought Ronnie's disinformation hook, line, and sinker, no? The fact is that the Cuban people, and especially Castro, were very enamoured of, and friendly with Maurice Bishop, who was murdered by the counter-revolutionary militarists. Immediately after the coup, Castro bemoaned the fact that his friend Bishop had been killed and predicted that the US would take advantage of this excuse (the military takeover) to invade Grenada. Cuba refused to give any military aid to the military government even tho it was, of course, requested. The Cuban workers who were there when Bishop was killed were ordered to only defend themselves if attacked. Reagan and his cabinet clearly *lied* about several aspects of the invasion operation, and it wasn't because they didn't know what was happening. The biggest lie was that the purpose of the operation was to rescue US citizens (who were put in danger BY the invasion) -- the "liberation" of Grenada had been practiced two years before on an island off Puerto Rico. Also, we occupied the island rather than getting our people off and pulling out. Also the stories about large quantities of Cuban soldiers and the mass grave being found, both lies. The quantity and distribution of Cuban citizens was found to be exactly the same as the Cuban government had reported to Washington. Yes, the military takeover in Grenada was as reprehensible as that by f*cking Pinochet in Chile. However, this was a personal power play by those involved in the plot (in my opinion). Why would Cuba or the Soviet Union threaten the already excellent relations they had with Grenada when they *knew* that the US (I hesitate to say "we") was spoiling for a chance to eradicate creeping socialism in all its manifestations? Jeff Myers
brener@milrat.DEC (09/18/84)
Wayne, i think your reference to the leftists of El Salvador and Nicaragua as Communists Terrorists is capricious to say the least. The people of El Salvador and Nicaragua were polarized and forced into armed struggle *in response* to the genocidal regimes governing them (often self-servingly referred to as democratic regimes). There are no more death squads in Nicaragua (outside of the contras), there is no capital punishment, the people now have a right to health care, education and employment for the first time, and they don't get their skin ripped off and eyes spooned out of they question the government. In El Salvador the guerilla war could not continue without substantial support from the peasantry, considering the massive fire- power of the military and the war they've waged upon the civilians in this tiny country. The recent demonstration election in El Salvador was farcical as the paricipants were issued registered numbered ballots, and it may be important to note that during the last tenure of Jose Napolean Duarte 20,000 additional deaths were tallied. As for the Khmer Rouge, they now receive massive U.S. support. A people are not won over by empty proclamations of democracy, it's important for you to consider what what is really being dealt to the people before you divide everything up into an East-West conflict.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (09/19/84)
> What should we think of a person who is quick to pass moral judgement > on the Russians, but claims that our own actions are not subject to > the same moral standards? Many words come to mind, none of them nice. I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're dangerous... It is easy to argue without any moral propositions that the world is better off without Soviet domination than it would be with it. (And also better off under US domination, although I certainly don't advocate the US taking the same sort of role in the world that the USSR is trying to take.) Wayne
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (09/19/84)
<...> >The coup in Grenada was a Cuban/Soviet sponsored takeover... Good to hear this from an eye-witness....! >...some of the things that go on in Central America are pretty >obscure... Depends on where you get your information from.... >But the point is that compared to the USSR the US is practically >a model of virtue. Hear that Homeric laughter? -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) (09/20/84)
>Wait, are you talking about Afghanistan? Reactionary big landowners, >gathering together fanatic moslems to fight the government? First, >before th Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the government was overthrown >by a group of terrorists, supported by the Soviets, who then "invited" >the Soviets in to help them keep the country in line. I think it's more >a matter of villagers fighting for their lives and property than >fanatical moslem dupes. The government was overthrown by a military coup not a bunch of terrorist. The previous government was monarchy. Now if you are saying that monarchy is pro people, you have been smoking something. The villagers's life is not treathened. Mainly the big land owners who do not wish to give the land up to the people who work on it, namely the farmers. So they have gathered alot of the farmers up and using their fanatism of Islam are having them fight the Afghan and russian army. >Whatever you are trying to say, if you think that it was a case of the >big bad US invading poor Grenada, you are far off the mark. The coup in >Grenada was a Cuban/Soviet sponsored takeover, and Grenada's neighbors >were rightly worried about giving Cuba another base from which to launch >terrorist attacks against them. What you are saying is that it is ok for a neighbor to invite some one to take over another island, but it is not ok for the government to ask for help. >I should probably take back my statement about the US not having caused >problems for non-Soviet dominated groups -- some of the things that go >on in Central America are pretty obscure... But the point is that >compared to the USSR the US is practically a model of virtue. > >Wayne So you believe in choosing the lesser of the evils and not getting rid of evil and replacing it with good. As some one said, choosing Satan or the Devil, either way we will end up in Hell.
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (09/20/84)
In terms of trying to uncover what the people of Grenada actually think of the Cuban and/or US interventions, I recall seeing an article about a month ago (could it have been some anniversary, such as one year, after the invasion?), in either Time Newsweek or US News and World Report (perhaps all three, as news items tend to track pretty well in all three magazines). Either of these magazines ought to be a little more un-biased than either the administration, or some of the foes of the administration. In any case, the reporters went to Grenada and tried to talk to as many people on the street, workers, etc. as possible. Their conclusion was that the majority of the Grenadan people supported the US intervention, and supported the plans for re-establishing the Grenadan govt. Sure, there was dissent to this opinion, but it was clearly in the minority. Worthwhile reading, anyway. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/20/84)
[] >I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're dangerous... How is it possible to consider something dangerous without inherently assuming that it is bad, at least in that aspect which may prove harmful? > It >is easy to argue without any moral propositions that the world is better off >without Soviet domination than it would be with it. Not really. Domination requires coercion. Coercion is always a violation of other people's rights; it is always a morally sensitive action. Thus it is impossible to argue about domination (or any other kind of coercion) without arguing morality as well. Of course, you can always just *ignore* morality.... (0.5 :-)) > (And also better off >under US domination, Right. Those savages out there need to be uplifted and purified and strengthened and made moral by the States, in whatever image the current Stateside government cares to impose on them. Somoza and Marcos are two pristine examples of the fruits of the States' domination policies. The world would quite simply be better off with NO domination by anyone. > although I certainly don't advocate the US taking the >same sort of role in the world that the USSR is trying to take.) > > Wayne Really? How does one kind of imperialism differ from another? Do you really believe that the rest of the world WANTS to be second-class citizens of the U.S.?! -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (09/21/84)
Wayne@ucbvax: > Do you think they enjoy the Communist terrorist groups, in El > Salvador, and the government of Nicaragua? First: I would really like it if you used a more unbiased term than 'communist terrorist groups'. Why do americans always talk about the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan and the Communist Terrorists in countries that are supported by the US? This is exactly the style of propagandistic talk that you always condemn if it comes form the USSR...... Second: If I see that the freedom fighters in El Salvador have been firmly supported by the church, and still are, even though you don't see it very much, since the government shot all the bishops and priests who opposed them, I can't believe that they are 'communist terrorists'. The reason that they accept help from communist countries is very simple: who else should they turn to? Third: Even though the situation in El Salvador might be very unclear, things in Nicaragua are very clear. Until the CIA put the country under pressure *for no reason at all*, everyone in the country supported the government. Now that the US is supplying the rebels with weapons etc, the Nicaraguan government has to take some impopular measures to withstand the threat. I *do* agree that some errors were made, but the whole situation was caused by the CIA. If they hadn't interfered, the Mesquitos would still be living in there homes, and besides that, the economy and the eduction program would be in much better state by now. Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack
victorf@houca.UUCP (09/21/84)
This is not about Reagan's joke and neither are ANY of the recent articles bearing this subject line. Please people, title your articles appropriately. I don't want to 'n' key something that might have been interesting. Scott Thompson "So let it be written, so let it be done!"
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (09/23/84)
> <...> > > >The coup in Grenada was a Cuban/Soviet sponsored takeover... > Good to hear this from an eye-witness....! Are you an eyewitness?? > > >...some of the things that go on in Central America are pretty > >obscure... > Depends on where you get your information from.... Do you have some wonderfully accurate and complete sources that the rest of us are deprived of? > > >But the point is that compared to the USSR the US is practically > >a model of virtue. > Hear that Homeric laughter? > -- > Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam > ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet You know, a few witty and well-placed comments aren't much compared with a serious attempt to deal with important issues. If you like to tear down everybody else's statements, the least you could do is make some vaguely sensible explanations of your own position. Wayne
amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) (09/25/84)
>America is, in fact, the only nation in history which when given a >chance for world domination, refused it. We had the atom bomb before >anyone else, and if we had behaved like any of the Caesars, Kaisers, >Khans, Soviets, Kings, Lords or "leaders", who came before us, we would >have cowed the world into submission. Instead, Americans gave the >equivalent of billions dollars, to help europe to recover from a war >which the europeans started. You apparently forget who used the first atomic bomb to bring Japan into submission. >We still spend billions to keep europe in peace. Despite the Soviet >Union, there is more democracy on that contenent than there ever has >been in its entire history; all inspired and nurtured by America. So >much so, that when we deal with anti-communist dictatorships, they >accuse us of not promoting freedom. What are you trying to say? That supporting dictatorships that kill thousands of innocent women, men & children is okay, because it provide democracy for the ellite?? >The US prefers to call it realism. We are not about to go invading >half the world installing democracy. Such an idea is absurd. Neither >can we turn our backs on dictatorships. They will simply go to the >Soviet union. So we "support" (i.e. trade with) many dictatorships. >Which, some people feel, makes us responsible for what goes on in those >countries. But we also trade with the Soviet union, and I haven't >heard any complaints about the US supporting them from anybody. The people with open mind prefere to call it, Imperialism. You apparently don't pay attention to the news. Granada did'nt happen a century ago. Nicaragua is happening now. El Salvador also, and many other countries. Trading with a country is not the same as supporting that country. >I feel, if given our druthers, America would happily go off being >the isolationist nation we once were. Rather than leaching out >our wealth on such a large standing army, we would happily let the >europeans blow themselves up in yet another round of wars, like they >always have. It hurts even more to realize that many of the young >europeans don't even thank us, not even studying their own bloody >hiostory, preferring to put faith in idealistic notions about the >Soviet union "wanting peace". You again apparently do not understand the economics of Capitalism. Seems to me you are talking based on your emotions rather than reality. >But of course, Piet doesn't understand this yet. Maybe he never >will. Neither do many West Germans. But luckily, the Israelies >always have, and the French are begining to show some signs of >maturity as well.... so maybe not all hope is lost... >Steven Maurer I am not surprised that you accept Israel and France's foreign policy. The French wanted to "keep democracy" in Viet-Nam. And when they failed, U.S. tried to fill the gap. The French also did the same in Africa. As far as Israel is concerned, they are just U.S foreign policy in Middle East. What ever that the U.S. can not for political reason do over there, Israel goes and finishes it. Now every one knows what your meaning of "maturity" is.
aaz@pucc-i (mengal) (09/29/84)
< here little line eater... >
Let us not confuse U.S. Foreign policy with our constitutional
rights in the United States. The fact that we have freedom of speech
in our country and the USSR doesn't has *NOTHING* to do with our foreign
policy!!! Our having freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to
fund Contras in Nicaragua who burn hospitals in an attempt to weaken
the popularly supported government. So let's not bring this "The
US is morally right because of our constitution" crud into foreign
policy. Our constitution says nothing about foriegn policy except
that the president decides what it is, and if our president makes bad
decisions it is our duty as citizens to make a *BIG* stink about it.
The "My country right or wrong" stuff belongs in Russia !!!
-----
Marc W. Mengel
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!aaz
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
maybe someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one "martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (09/30/84)
>From amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 >As far as Israel is concerned, they are just U.S foreign policy >in Middle East. What ever that the U.S. can not for political reason do over >there, Israel goes and finishes it. Israel does not pursue American foreign policy in the Middle East. However, the United States often does bring pressure against Israeli interests. There are many American Government officials who can not wait to brown-nose Arab-Muslim oil wealth. Had the U.S.A not intervened on behalf of Nasir's fanatic bigoted Arab Muslim government in 1956, the Suez Canal would still be in British hands, had the U.S.A not intervened during the Yom Kipur war, Egypt would have had one army anihilated, and had the U.S.A not intervened in the Lebanon war, the P.L.O forces in Beirut would just be a pile of corpses on the Muslim side of the green line. Unfortunately, the U.S.A. has often used its muscle to prevent Israel from acting in Israel's best interests. Yehoyaqim Martillo-Ajami
scw@cepu.UUCP (10/01/84)
In article <246@digi-g.UUCP> amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) writes: > > >America is, in fact, the only nation in history which when given a > >chance for world domination, refused it. We had the atom bomb before > >anyone else, and[...]tarted. > >You apparently forget who used the first atomic bomb to bring Japan into >submission. You still didn't address the fact that we REFUSED world domination. I won't get into a FLAMING MATCH re: the use of *2* (not 1) Atomic Bombs in WWII. That was throughly hacked over about 2 months ago. > > >We still spend billions to keep europe in peace. Despite the Soviet > >Union, there is more democracy on that contenent than there ever has > >been in its entire history; all inspired and nurtured by America. So > >much so, that when we deal with anti-communist dictatorships, they > >accuse us of not promoting freedom. > >What are you trying to say? That supporting dictatorships that kill thousands >of innocent women, men & children is okay, because it provide democracy for >the ellite?? Did you even read the preceding paragraph? > > > >The US prefers to call it realism. We are not about to go invading > >half the world installing [...]US supporting them from anybody. > >The people with open mind prefere to call it, Imperialism. >You apparently don't pay attention to the news. Granada did'nt happen a >century ago. Nicaragua is happening now. El Salvador also, and many other >countries. Imperialism?, You call that Imperialism? Then what, pray tell, do you call the current Soviet affair in Afganistan? A parlor game? > >Trading with a country is not the same as supporting that country. Sounds reasonable to me. > > >I feel, if given our druthers, America would happily go off being > >the isolationist nation we once were. Rather than leaching out > >our wealth on such a large standing army, we would happily let the > >europeans blow themselves up in yet another round of wars, like they > >always have. It hurts even more to realize that many of the young > >europeans don't even thank us, not even studying their own bloody > >hiostory, preferring to put faith in idealistic notions about the > >Soviet union "wanting peace". > >You again apparently do not understand the economics of Capitalism. Seems >to me you are talking based on your emotions rather than reality. Somehow I still have the feeling that you're not reading what the other chap said. > > >But of course, Piet doesn't understand this yet. Maybe he never > >will. Neither do many West Germans. But luckily, the Israelies > >always have, and the French are begining to show some signs of > >maturity as well.... so maybe not all hope is lost... > > >Steven Maurer > >I am not surprised that you accept Israel and France's foreign policy. > Yes, but not all of us do. >The French wanted to "keep democracy" in Viet-Nam. And when they failed, >U.S. tried to fill the gap. The French also did the same in Africa. > Ah, the French , well it just goes to show that when it's time to stop having external colonies it's time to stop. As I remember it the French were busy supressing a revolt by Frenchmen who DIDN'T want Algeria separated from France (Remember that Algeria was not a colony, but rather was a part of France). >As far as Israel is concerned, they are just U.S foreign policy >in Middle East. What ever that the U.S. can not for political reason do over >there, Israel goes and finishes it. I beg your pardon? Where did you ever get such a strange idea? Israel is its own boss, we have some negative control over them (threating to cut of supplys) if they do this that or the other, but we hardly control them. > >Now every one knows what your meaning of "maturity" is. And now it seems that everyone knows that you seem to lack any form of it. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
brener@milrat.DEC (10/02/84)
>If given our druthers, America would happily go off being the isolationist >Nation we once were You certainly could use a good lesson in Capitalist economics. Our markets were saturated around the turn of the century which lead us into the Phillipine and Spanish-American wars. Isolationism is incompatible with the constant demand for increased profits. The dialog of such politicians as Henry Cabbott Lodge and his ilk might fascinate you. steve b
scw@cepu.UUCP (10/02/84)
In article <429@uwvax.UUCP> myers@uwvax.UUCP writes: >>Whatever you are trying [...]ving Cuba another base from which to launch >>terrorist attacks against them. > >You bought Ronnie's disinformation hook, line, and sinker, no? The fact is >that the Cuban people, and [...] predicted that the US would take advantage >of this excuse (the military takeover) to invade Grenada. Bishop was murdered by the CUBAN trained & advised Army. Just because Castro 'bemoaned' the death of Bishop doesn't mean that Cuba had nothing to do with it. >Cuba refused to give any military aid to the military government even tho >it was, of course, requested. The Cuban workers who were there when Bishop >was killed were ordered to only defend themselves if attacked. Workers with heavy weapons? >Reagan and his cabinet clearly *lied* about several aspects of the invasion >operation, and it wasn't becau[...]quantities of Cuban soldiers and the >mass grave being found, both lies. The quantity and distribution of Cuban >citizens was found to be exactly the same as the Cuban government had >reported to Washington. The US is ALWAYS practicing landings, that's how you stay trained. The Soviet Union practices them too. I agree that the Mass grave story was untrue, it sounds like someone passed along a rumor. The quantity and distrbution of Cuban citizens was indeed on the close order of what Havana stated, but not the quality and equipment of same. >Yes, the military takeover in Grenada was as reprehensible as that by >f*cking Pinochet in Chile. However, this was a personal power play by >those involved in the plot[...] hesitate to say "we") was spoiling for >a chance to eradicate creeping socialism in all its manifestations? Well, perhaps Bishop was more interested in doing the right thing by his country that in doing what Havana/Moscow wanted. >Jeff Myers -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (10/03/84)
*** The San Franciscio Chronicle today (oct. 3, 1984) had an article titled "A Scary Footnote To Reagan's Joke About Russia". Tokyo One afternoon in August, according to well in- formed sources here, the Soviet Far Eastern headquarters suddenly dispached a message that said: "We now embark on military action against the U.S. forces.: The message was canceled 30 minutes later, the longest time a message of this sort had gone uncancled. It was apparently in retaliation for Reagan's joke.
rwh@pyuxii.UUCP (R. W. Heitner) (10/05/84)
>>If given our druthers, America would happily go off being the isolationist >>Nation we once were >You certainly could use a good lesson in Capitalist economics. Our markets >were saturated around the turn of the century which lead us into the >Phillipine and Spanish-American wars. Isolationism is incompatible with >the constant demand for increased profits. The dialog of such politicians >as Henry Cabbott Lodge and his ilk might fascinate you. >steve b Be serious, you obviously need a lession in basic economics. Isolationism and profits have nothing to do with one another, in the 1920's we were isolationist and profits soared. In my history books, the 'Phillipine war' was part of the Spanish American War, and had nothing to do with saturated markets. In the late 1890's, immigrants were pouring into this country, creating vast markets. Before spouting off some socialist rhetoric from the 60's, you should check some of your fantasy facts. By the way, the last place to get a good lesson in any sort of economics is from a politician. Bob
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (10/05/84)
> The only reason our country would > ever have anything to worry about would be if communism really was a better > system than our own dearest capitalist system, and I don't hear any of the > "defending democracy for our survival" folks claiming that!!! Rubbish. Communism never was and never will be a superior system, in any sense. Besides which a society does not select communism after a careful appraisal of capitalism vs. communism. Communism is foistered, using force, deceipt, and capitalizing (pun intended) on the common man's powerlessness and/or ignorance. > The governments being revolted against in south america are some > of the worst in the world when it comes to human rights and democracy, yet > when someone there tries to do something about it, we yell "Communists" and > dash in with all the support we can muster... If sending 55 military advisers to El Salvador, and floating a few fright-bombs in a Nicaraguan harbor is considered "dashing in with all the support we can muster," then we are all in dire straits. Last time "something [was done] about it" in South America, I believe it was Argentina converting to democracy after a military dictatorship. I understand we cheered at that. Are you really going to wait for the Marxist Nicaraguans to take the plunge? Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) (10/05/84)
Where have you been? Israel had done all the dirty jobs U.S could not do herself in the middle east, mostly because of worries that Russia might get involved. So they go in as peace keepers to Lebanon! Peace keepers! What peace? U.S has always stood for Israel's interest, and vetoed every thing U.N came up with in condemnation of Israels massacres(spelling?). Tell me an occassion when U.S really condemned Israel's inhumane acts?
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/06/84)
-- >> Be serious, you obviously need a lession in basic economics. >> Isolationism and profits have nothing to do with one another, in the >> 1920's we were isolationist and profits soared. In my history books, >> the 'Phillipine war' was part of the Spanish American War, and had >> nothing to do with saturated markets. In the late 1890's, immigrants >> were pouring into this country, creating vast markets. Perhaps lessons in logic would be more appropriate. I think the hypothesis is, "Profits OK, US isolationist; profits in trouble, US imperialist." I won't defend any theory so simple, but Bob here has not produced a counterexample. >> Before spouting off some socialist rhetoric from the 60's, Or vacuous jingoism from the 80's (Not you Bob--I'm just trying to maintain some reasonable perspective here). >> you should check some of your fantasy facts. By the way, the last place >> to get a good lesson in any sort of economics is from a politician. >> Bob Or history books. They are pretty good, though, for learning how to spell "Philippine." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 05 Oct 84 [14 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (10/10/84)
> U.S has always stood for Israel's interest, and vetoed every thing U.N came up > with in condemnation of Israels massacres(spelling?). > Tell me an occassion when U.S really condemned Israel's inhumane acts? Israel is condemned in the UN every time anybody in Israel takes a deep breath. The Arabs attack Israel, get soundly trounced... Israel is condemned by the UN. Arab terrorists blow up a preschool or a schoolbus ... Israel is condemned by the UN. Lately, the UN is just another branch of the KBG. And we're supposed to help? Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
roy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (10/12/84)
(Sorry if you saw this, but I don't think it made it out) The views I express here are not necessarily those of anyone but myself. So the amateur strategists never say why the SU would want West Europe, do they? Ok, here is an amateur strategist (among other appelations). Western Europe is an embarrasment to the SU. There is always some social incorrigible voting with his feet and trying to leave the SU or East Europe. He'll probably get shot or blown up but it's worth it. How many people want to emigrate to the SU? The presence of an open society so close to the SU is a continuous problem. The Russians can't do whatever they want to because if they strect themselves too thin, things get out of hand. In 1980 they would have readily sent the Red Army into Poland, but they were already in a logistical nightmare supplying the forces in Afghanistan. And understand, the Soviet concept of supply is fuel and bullets. Food the soldier can requisition off of the indigenous population, or do without. The establishment of the West German economy in 48 was an embarrassment, so the Soviets set up East Germany, and that was all she wrote for German unification (but we knew that was coming; we didn't want a nation between us and the SU playing balance of power games like GB did in the 18th and 19th centuries. But when GB did its job, the powers weren't armed to the teeth all the time. Britain threw itself to the Entente before WWI, and the peace of Europe could never be kept when Europe was divided into two camps. Britain paid the price with the erosion of her Empire). If the SU took over WG, do you think the latter would still be an industrial power? By the same token, the last thing the SU would want is to take over the USA. Hell, somebody has to provide the grain and the microchips. Not that the Soviet leadership explicitly care about the misfortunes of starving workers, but thatthe workers are the basis for the wealth of the Soviet elite. And right now, major military campaigns cannot be planned for the harvest season, because the Army has to help bring it in. Amid all the rhetoric, it gets lost that any power group, US govt, USSR govt, Boy Scout Masters, etc., wants their power to expand. You don't gain power just so you can give it away to the dispossesed, who have not yet earned it (and therefore don't deserve it!). It is the stated aim of Communism to engulf the world, and it sounds impressive at Party meetings, it just doesn't happen to be doable. But don't construe that to mean that the SU has no territorial ambitions beyond its borders. They just happen to have a few problems. And anyway, they would rather restrain themselves, than fall on their faces and lose their power. Remember, thats what the previous ruling class did to get them there. I have rambled quite a bit here. I am basically trying to make three points: -Why it is not in theinterest o fthe SU to overrun the US, as so much of middle America seems to believe, -Why the threat to West Europe is real -I also have hinted that, behind the sham of the US vs. USSR farce, both governments have played their roles very well One should not be too quick to attribute to error what is equally explainable by malice (sorry, Hanlon). This am. strategist has shot off his tty. Any others? "You have to provide a good diversion for the peasants and livestock" -Dave Sim Steve Rojak, So Plainfield, NJ
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/16/84)
==============
Lately, the UN is just another branch of the KBG. And we're supposed to
help?
Richard Brower Fortune Systems
==============
Yup. Indeedy, it's true. Everybody IS out of step except our Ronnie.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtdick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) (10/21/84)
The "discussion" about "Reagan's joke" is beating around the bush. We should face the fact that the present President of the United States is a man who gets a kick out of the idea of throwing bombs on the Soviet Union, not a man who considers nuclear attack as a moral and practical impossibility and nuclear retaliation as a horrible last resort. He has made it clear that he looks forward to WW III as to a Carnival and is eager to play a leading role in the greatest horror show ever. We should be grateful to Mr. Reagan for providing this valuable insight into his psyche and should act accordingly. Dick Grune Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/24/84)
> We should face the fact that the present President of the United States is a > man who gets a kick out of the idea of throwing bombs on the Soviet Union, > not a man who considers nuclear attack as a moral and practical > impossibility and nuclear retaliation as a horrible last resort. He has made > it clear that he looks forward to WW III as to a Carnival and is eager to > play a leading role in the greatest horror show ever. Reagan may be many things, but you are really being absurd in accusing him of actually desiring a nuclear war. Tell me, what sort of sentiments do you think would motivate anybody to want such a thing? A desire to commit suicide in the most dramatic way possible, maybe, but I doubt that Reagan wants to do this... He's had four years to destroy the world and hasn't managed it yet, has he? Wayne
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (10/25/84)
>> From faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Tue Oct 23 22:15:08 1984 >> >> Reagan may be many things, but you are really being absurd in accusing him >> of actually desiring a nuclear war. Tell me, what sort of sentiments do >> you think would motivate anybody to want such a thing? A desire to commit >> suicide in the most dramatic way possible, maybe, but I doubt that Reagan >> wants to do this... He's had four years to destroy the world and hasn't >> managed it yet, has he? Reagan may not "desire" a nuclear war, but he and his backers have displayed a dismaying tendency to believe that nuclear war is inevitable and/or wouldn't be so bad if it happened. His recent denials in the debates to the contrary, there is far too much talk in Reagan's circles of "winning" a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, an impossibility by any sane definition of the word "win." He and his administration refuse to act as if they really believe that nuclear war is suicide. Instead they talk about whether or not everybody will have "enough shovels." Furthermore, even if Reagan and his friends don't actually want to fight and win a nuclear war, they are downright eager to fight and win an arms race. Ronald Reagan is the only president since the nuclear era began who has achieved absolutely n o arms limitation agreements with the Soviet Union. He hasn't even made a convincing show of trying. Because of the John Wayne posturing which limits his thinking and his happiness at the chance to stimulate the military production portion of the economy at the expense of everything else, Reagan is blind to the fact that the Soviets will no more negotiate from a position of weakness than we will, and that many of his favorite weapons are so destabilizing that they make a nuclear war more likely and future verifiable arms control next to impossible. The argument that "he's had four years to destroy the world and hasn't managed it yet" is meaningless. In four years he has managed to take us several steps down the road toward nuclear destruction without even the least bit of foot-dragging. Whether the man wants nuclear war or not is immaterial; that's what he's working to give us. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
leo@uf-csv.UUCP (Leo Wilson [staff]) (10/28/84)
Ho, hum, why can't y'all take this discussion to the MAIL or to net.toooldandlongtobearanymore ? Besides, there are lots funnier jokes in net.jokes....... -- Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Leo Wilson USPS: University of Florida akgua!uf-csv(!uf-csg)!leo 512 Weil Hall CSNET: leo@ufl Gainesville, FL 32611 AT&T: (904)392-2371