welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (01/06/84)
A number of people have said that "Jackson was out for himself" as if there was something wrong in that. Also people have said that what Jackson did was political. I think people who argue this way should ask themselves the question if they are prejudiced against a black man. I would like to know what modern times presidential candidate hasn't been primarily out for himself? Further, I would like to know what actions a presidential candidate can take during an election that aren't political? I don't give a dam what Jackson's motives were, the man got results. More important than just getting the flier back he gave the USA an opportunity to negotiate with the Syrians in a less charged atmosphere. As far as Jackson running for president, he has given himself credibility on two very important areas. First, he has shown himself an able negotiator. Second, he has demonstrated an ability to grab people's imagination. Neither area is a strong point for Reagan or the other Democratic candidates. Run, Jackson Run Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
pector@ihuxw.UUCP (Scott W. Pector) (01/06/84)
This is a response (and somewhat of a rebuttal) to Larry Welsch's response to my article on Jessie and some other people's articles. I agree with both Ken Perlow and Larry that all candidates are political and do things that serve their own interests (although sometimes these things have good consequences for others and sometimes the politicos do something primarily for its inherent goodness with personal gains being a secondary consideration). I guess Larry is saying that whatever Jackson's morals in the matter were is, in fact, irrelevant. Good things that can be done should be done if the doer is responsible and thinks he or she will be acceptable. (Larry, I hope that this is what you meant, because your words lend themselves to that interpretation. I believe you made some comment that you didn't care what JJ's motivations were, since the serviceman was saved among other good consequences.) Ignoring the parentheticals for the moment, believe that the last sentence is kind of silly (rather the idea expressed in it) and it reminds of an ongoing discussion on the net about the mythical good ruler and power. Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes, if the ends can be guaranteed. Could Jackson do so? NO! Was there any danger in his attempt? Some; that is some that would not be likely, yet not entirely unlikely. Larry, what if Syria decided to put the crewman in worse conditions as a slap in the face to the US in response to Jackson's overtures? It would have been a good way for them to show how little they care for Reagan's thunderings and for the American people since the Syrians have that wonderful 20-year pact with the USSR. Larry, what would you be saying then? A point that I'd like to make is that I don't think it is a good idea for people not in the US government and designated by the President or Congress to step in and usurp the roles of US negotiators. The responsibility for the success or failure or inbetween of the efforts belongs to the US Government. They were elected, you know! For a constituency that does not represent our government to try to do its job in international situations is a dangerous precedent. Would you justify some lunatic going in and shooting up Assad and his buddies, freeing the serviceman, and doing whatever else he could do? (Somehow I get the feeling that someone is going to accuse Reagan of planning or being capable of doing this given Grenada!) People have many ways of expressing their discontent with government policies and actions, as stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let them use these approaches. How can one begin to consider usurping governmental prerogative in international affairs? Further, how can one, if they do so, justify their means? Some people would use violence, some would use diplomacy, others .... Many disagree with Reagan, but he's an elected official and there are legal ways of dealing with him. If, however, these ways aren't successful, does that mean usurping his government's role in such affairs is right? How do you know that you are right? In the end, the government has been elected by the people and their decisions have to be accepted. Now, people disagree and try to convince them otherwise, but whatever is decided can't be changed much until it is decided differently later (if ever). That just seems to be the way our political system works. Well, I think I'm spewing too much and going off the track; so, why don't I cut it here and say that it is not a matter of racism that I disagree with Jackson's action. Instead, it's that he usurped authority and became his own government in international affairs. This is what worries me. Scott Pector
esj@ihuxl.UUCP (J. Johnson) (01/06/84)
"... he has proven himself an able negotiator ..." Horse puckey! He didn't have the power to negotiate. What could he offer the Syrians? Fighter bombers? Foreign aid? The man is not in a position to give them anything. Now maybe he made a deal along the lines of "IF I'm elected President or run as V.P., THEN I'll do blah, blah, blah ...". Aside from that what could he do? The trip has been touted as a "great moral appeal in the name of peace", etc. Now I don't argue that it worked & I'm glad to see Lt. Goodman home, but think of the immense gain the Syrians made instead. They look like humanitarians (moral appeal, remember?), they don't have to worry about the US public wanting to stomp their butts into the ground for holding/hurting our man, and best of all, they made Reagan & his minions look like a bunch of "warmongers". Mr. Jackson reaped the benefits, sure, but so did the other side. As long as the legal requirements are met, he should run; but not on the basis of his "negotiating prowess". J. "Swell" Johnson ihnp4!ihuxl!esj
al@ames-lm.UUCP (Al Globus) (01/17/84)
What's so magical about governments that they have sole right to free the imprisoned? Three cheers for JJ and a country where the people aren't afraid to be free (thats us!).