plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (Scott Plunkett) (01/18/84)
Sophie Quigley has vented her spleen voluminously and with such force as to make me wonder: just what do they put in the water up there? Amongst a bevy of strident proclamations she accused the Americans of not being the least interested in anything a yard beyond their collective noses. Americans, as a rule, seem to be very interested in world affairs, and feel deeply the sufferring that is seen to occur. The amount of financial aid and other assistance given to foreign governments and plighted peoples everywhere is evidence of the American generosity and concern. If the Americans are to be slighted at all in their dealings with the world, it is not so much a lack of interest, but a stubborn belief in the goodness of all people, a willingness to disbelieve the most horrific truths of ruthless governments. This trait, I believe, is shared with Canadians; it is the Western liberal tradition. The Soviets are banking on it. ..allegra!rlgvax!plunkett
Pucc-H:aeq@CS-Mordred.UUCP (01/19/84)
The amount of financial aid and other assistance given to
foreign governments and plighted peoples everywhere is evidence of
the American generosity and concern.
Oh? If America were truly generous to plighted peoples, there would have
been no Payment-In-Kind program; instead the government would have bought the
surplus grain and sent it abroad to feed hungry people. That way the American
farmers would still have gotten their money, and millions of other people
would also have benefited. If the government is going to spend tax dollars
anyway, they might at least do some actual good with the money.
I suspect that most members of the current administration have never read
Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy" (well, tetralogy now). In the section of
"Foundation" entitled "The Merchant Princes", a major character says this:
".... To seize control of a world, they [the Galactic Empire]
bribe with immense ships that can make war, but lack all economic
significance. We, on the other hand, bribe with little things,
useless in war, but vital to prosperity and profits.
"A [ruler] will take the ships and even make war. Arbitrary
rulers throughout history have bartered their subjects' welfare for
what they considered honor, and glory, and conquest. But it's still
the little things that count -- and [the ruler of the kingdom which
the Foundation is fighting] won't stand up against the economic
depression which will sweep all [the opposing kingdom] in two or
three years."
The point: The Soviet Union tries to expand its empire by sending arms to
a country. (I recently saw a cartoon of a starved woman holding out a plate
on which is a gun labeled "Made in USSR"; the caption is, "We asked for
bread.") The United States, especially under "conservative" administrations,
seems to favor the same tactics. Perhaps we might win more friends if we
gave countries what they really needed.
-- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeqdiy@sb6.UUCP (D. I. Young) (01/20/84)
I agree with your point. But the current mood of the country, as *I* see it, and as I see it coming from the present administration, is that we sent them food and money during the Peace Corps years of Kennedy, and all the babies grew up to hate Americans. Also, the current Administration is obsessed with the godless evil Soviet empire and stopping them, and the only way to stop them is to get their respect by having just as many guns as they have and arming just as many of our friends as they have! We (and our friends) will eat our meals in peace once we're safe! Or, if I may do my cheap imitation of George Will, look at it this way: If I send you food, and along comes a bear to eat up your food everytime,then th the next thing I'll send you is a gun! I'm of the school of thought of winning and keeping friends through ADMIRATION and RESPECT, not through INTIMIDATION! Sure, you'll repect me because I can kick your tail if you don't! dennis
diy@sb6.UUCP (D. I. Young) (01/20/84)
Sorry about the lack of net etiquete...My article wasafollowup to article number 2101, concerning Anti-American feelings, written by Jeff Sargent. Ooops, also sorry about "etiquete"...but when one is inflamed with the passion of one's convictions spelling suffers... dennis
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (01/21/84)
#R:rlgvax:-157800:uiucdcs:29200058:000:1107 uiucdcs!renner Jan 20 21:06:00 1984 > /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / pucc-h!aeq / 3:34 am Jan 19, 1984 */ > > The amount of financial aid and other assistance given to > foreign governments and plighted peoples everywhere is evidence of > the American generosity and concern. > > Oh? If America were truly generous to plighted peoples, there would > have been no Payment-In-Kind program; instead the government would have > bought the surplus grain and sent it abroad to feed hungry people. > That way the American farmers would still have gotten their money, and > millions of other people would also have benefited. If the government > is going to spend tax dollars anyway, they might at least do some > actual good with the money. It is not possible to end starvation by sending food to the hungry -- one simply ends up with many more hungry people. This is no kindness. The solution lies in helping the hungry people to self-sufficiency, by teaching methods of birth control and improved agriculture. This the United States does, and should do more of. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (01/23/84)
Scott, you're wrong about American awareness. A recent study, "What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us" by the American Council on Education, found that one American in four couldn't find El Salvador on a map, and fewer than half know that the U.S. belongs to NATO. Furthermore, U.S. foreign aid is (or should be) a national embarassment. The richest nation in the world gives less as a percentage of GNP than do most of the Western European nations, and even some underdeveloped nations (like India) give a greater percentage of GNP than we do. The aid that we do give often comes back in profits for U.S.-based corporations. For example, one study by an American bank found that for every dollar in U.S. aid to Central America, three dollars came back to the U.S. As someone once remarked, the Alliance for Progress was really an alliance for the progress of U.S. corporations, not the Central American nations targeted as its "beneficiaries." Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk