berman@ihuxm.UUCP (Rational Chuzpah) (08/09/84)
----------------- >> >>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 >> This is not an unusual gripe from netland. Denunciations of the "uncivilized" nature of the Soviets are rather common among the affluent in Reagan-land. But if the concern is over commercial trade with evil regimes, heck, the trade we do with the Soviets is small change. Why not cut off trade with some real nasties, like: --South Africa: a brutal racist regime that denies fundamental human rights and dignity to 80% of its population on the basis of race. A place where Black children starve on desolate reservations while a small minority enjoy the greatest of comforts that the vitual enslavement of the majority can offer. --Marcos' Phillippines-- a brutal regime that murders the opposition, so discredited that even the middle-class and business strata march in the streets (at great peril) to oppose it. --Pinochet's Chile -- probably the most brutal and repressive regime in South America today, with the possible exception of Paraguay. A big trading parter of the United States in copper, agricultural products, aluminum, etc. Now we're talking some BIG trade dollars... ------------------------------------------------------- One should always make one's point explicitly, at least on the net, so here it is: If you take a moralistic stand in opposition to Soviet violations of human rights, then you are obliged to extend it to violations of rights under regimes that are considered friendly to the United States. Otherwise your moralism is phony baloney, too damn convenient, and hypocritical. -Andy Berman