[net.politics] Soviet Uncivilization

stuart@genrad.UUCP (stuart) (08/07/84)

Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial trade
with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing old women for saying
things against that government -- with a "punishment" of 
THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR??  I think we should stop making believe
that they're another civilized country over there. (They just believe
in a different "social structure", you see.)

  --Stuart {decvax,ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!stuart

rf@wu1.UUCP (08/09/84)

Stuart (genrad!stuart) writes:

  Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial
  trade with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing
  old women for saying things against that government -- with a
  "punishment" of THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR??  I think we should
  stop making believe that they're another civilized country
  over there. (They just believe in a different "social
  structure", you see.)

I should rather trade with them than war with them.  There are
several reasons:

  - Trade sanctions are not likely to cause their government to
    change its policies.  I'd guess that trade sanctions will
    only encourage their hard-liners.  "You're playing into
    *their* hands" is an argument heard on both sides of the
    ocean.

  - Given the enourmous arsenals of nuclear weapons that both
    the USA and the Russians have built, we should take steps
    that lead away from war, not towards it.

  - We cannot lay claim to moral superiority -- Russia is our
    competitor, not our congregation.  History is likely to
    judge *both* sides' claims of moral superiority as empty.


				Randolph Fritz
UUCPnet:			{ihnp4,decvax}!philabs!wu1!rf

"Sirronde stared at the Goddess.  'Are You saying, then, that You were
wrong to make heroes?'

"'Indeed not,' She said.  'But I should have warned them--if you save
the world too often, it starts to expect it.'"

(Diane Duane, *The Door into Shadow*)

david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/16/84)

Stuart (genrad!stuart) writes:

  Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial
  trade with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing
  old women for saying things against that government -- with a
  "punishment" of THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR??  I think we should
  stop making believe that they're another civilized country
  over there. (They just believe in a different "social
  structure", you see.)

Randolph (philabs!wu1!rf) writes:

   I should rather trade with them than war with them.  There are
   several reasons:

  - Trade sanctions are not likely to cause their government to
    change its policies.  I'd guess that trade sanctions will
    only encourage their hard-liners.  "You're playing into
    *their* hands" is an argument heard on both sides of the
    ocean.

  - Given the enourmous arsenals of nuclear weapons that both
    the USA and the Russians have built, we should take steps
    that lead away from war, not towards it.

  - We cannot lay claim to moral superiority -- Russia is our
    competitor, not our congregation.  History is likely to
    judge *both* sides' claims of moral superiority as empty.

I (fisher!david) write:

  - Trade sanctions are as likely to help soft-liners as hard-liners.
    The negative response by the West to Soviet human rights
    violations may be used by soft-liners as evidence of deficiency in
    hard-line policy. Moreover, the lack of sanctions allows
    hard-liners to argue policy is successful, and that perhaps
    pushing a bit harder in other areas will also bring no US or
    Western response.

  - We should recognize that eager accomadation can be as disasterous
    for peace as saber rattling. World War I began because Austria
    and Russia were unwilling (perhaps unable) to seek an accomodation,
    and France and Germany also lent their allies' hard-line policies
    full support. However, it is clear that Germany was counting on
    English neutrality, and had the English stated their intentions
    firmly, Germany would not have supported Austrian policy
    unconditionally, and WWI would have not started. Unfortunately,
    English policy was soft-line at a bad time.

    Of course, World War II remains the example par exellence of the
    danger of being perceived by an opponent as too eager to accomadate.

  - I believe we CAN claim moral superiority. We are not perfect, nor
    are we consistently good. But to say there is no moral distinction
    between expansionism and containment, between Democratic
    Republicanism and Leninist Dictatorship, is to judge the faults of
    the two superpowers with extreme disproportionality.

    However, moral superiority is IRRELEVANT in stabilizing US/USSR
    relations. While I will claim moral superiority for the US, I
    recognize that such claims will not influence Soviet leaders in a
    productive fashion. Moral considerations ought to help us select
    suitable goals, but once these goals are chosen, we cannot expect
    other nations to be more accomodating BECAUSE of it.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david