[net.politics] Arrogance and Foreign Policy

decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (01/18/84)

[Indented text is from Randwulf (Randy Haskins), and the rest is mine]

It dismays me that someone intelligent enough to attend MIT would say the
following:

    I think that the US and the USSR should get together and make glass-parking
    lots out of all of these little countries that like to screw with us.

This attitude is mind-boggling.  In the interest of humanity, I hope you will
not go into any field other than sports, where this kind of thinking is of
limited use, but at least it's less harmful.

Arrogance has never solved ANY problem for anybody.  Even if you have all the
right answers, insulting or killing someone is not going to win him over to
your side.  It will only irritate him (or his surviving family) and make more
enemies.  Treat people you think are mental children as adults, but remember
that they are children.  This will help them grow up.

    But when the little guys get to jerk the big guys around, that
    makes them feel like 'one of the big boys.'

And now you, as a self-proclaimed "big boy" (how ironically appropriate)
would like to jerk the little guys around to prove that you are a big boy.
Be an adult, and stop thinking with your testicles.

    Looked at the way Iran jerked us around.  Th[ese] feeble-minded,
    missile-penised two-bit dictators around the world need to do things like
    this to boost their little egos.  Of course, people like Reagan and
    Yuri-Baby don't have to do things quite like this [since] each of them
    go[es] to bed each night, secure in the knowledge that he could, if he so
    desired, order the end of the human race in the morning.

This knowledge is a tremendous responsiblity, and you do not understand that
being a more powerful country requires more responsiblity.  Neither of the
two leaders you mention would "so desire."  Perhaps that's what you desire,
but I'm glad you're not in control.  Destructive power gives only the insecure
a macho high.  "Bigger implies superior" is a way of thinking that is tough to
shed.

    I'm glad that Jackson brought Goodman home.  But what I was hoping
    would happen, is that the Syrians would have let Goodman come
    home and kept Jesse over there.  I mean, his eyes are too far
    apart (that's okay for First Ladies, but not for Presidents).

I'm glad that Jackson and Goodman came home together.  And I'm glad that at
least somebody was willing to communicate directly to foreign governments for
mutual benefit instead of "sending signals", as the current policy has been.
That impresses me as a waste, since we have the most advanced communication
systems in history.  I have heard of no studies relating suitability for public
office and interocular distance.  If that's your best criticism of Jackson,
I'd vote for him if I were you.

    As far as [why] Syria did it, well it's obvious they just wanted to
    hose Reagan, causing this country trouble.

I've heard comments like this before, and I have no evidence of Syria's
motives.  It is true that they want our troops to leave Lebanon, and to
stop air strikes on their country.

Dave Decot
decvax!cwruecmp!decot    (Decot.Case@rand-relay)