leblanc@rochester.UUCP (Tom LeBlanc) (12/14/83)
From: Tom LeBlanc <leblanc> ---------- Why is "Nicaragua is another Vietnam" accepted as gospel when the only thing they have in common is that the US supports the party in power from the right and the USSR supports the party not in power from the left, while "Greneda was a potential Iran" is ridiculed as nonsense by the same people. Reason: Reality is easy to imitate, but difficult to manufacture. ---------- The above submission had a Freudian slip; I meant El Salvador, not Nicaragua. This explains some of Jordan Pollacks cracks. As for the convenience of his analogy: I agree, but for different reasons. (His remarks are in quotes). "The dimensions of the analogy include the slow escalation of US involvement," You prefer rapid escalation? "the massive amounts of Propaganda fed into our media system," Most of which is yelling about Vietnam. "Iran and Vietnam are good targets for analogy because they serve up, respectively, patriotic and anti-patriotic sentiment." and because everyone carries a lot of convenient baggage of thought with respect to these two analogies, that allows us to ignore the particulars of each situation. Thus, for example, ANY jungle guerrilla war will fit in a nice cubbyhole called Vietnam and we don't have to give it another thought.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/15/83)
The reasons "Grenada is another Iran" is wrong is simple. (1) There was no real reason to fear for the safety of the students. The government had assured their safety, and the students themselves (certainly an important voice here) didn't feel in any danger. By contrast, in Iran there had already been a brief seizure of the embassy in February, 1979, nine months before the more well-known seizure. Both the Iranian government and our own embassy had warned Washington that if the Shah were admitted to this country, the embassy would be in grave danger. Despite this, Carter admitted the Shah, and less than a week later the embassy was seized. (2) The Grenadian government had no reason to threaten the students. Quite the contrary, threatening the students would have been the stupidest thing to do, since it would justify U.S. intervention, the constant fear of every small country in "our hemisphere"; that's why the government went out of its way to assure their safety. (3) Despite all this, let's suppose the government had some 'secret information' (which is always the refuge of scoundrels). Then why not a quick 'rescue mission' to remove the students and get out? No, this was no 'rescue mission', to use Reagan's Newspeak, but a full-scale, planned invasion. There is good reason to believe the planning had been ongoing for several months, just waiting for an opening. The coup provided that. These reasons were laid out, among other places, on the editorial page of the New York Times, in an editorial titled "Grenada, By O'Neill, By Orwell". Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
jsanders@aecom.UUCP (Jeremy Sanders) (12/19/83)
Mike Kelley claims that the medical students in Grenada didn't
feel threatened. This is definitely NOT the impression that I got from
the interveiws of the rescued students that I saw; indeed, most said that
they were gratefull.
--
Jeremy Sanders
{philabs|pegasus|esquire|cucard}!aecom!{sanders|jsanders}mjk@tty3b.UUCP (12/20/83)
It's true that the students were grateful to get back to the U.S. Of course, I'd probably be glad to get out from under a war, too. The fact remains that the greatest real danger they were ever in was from Marine gunfire during the invasion. Again, no one has ever explained specifically why it was believed the students were in danger, and specifically why, if they were in danger, an invasion rather than a rescue mission was required. No one. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/25/83)
#R:rocheste:-417800:uokvax:5000049:000:240 uokvax!andree Dec 22 18:22:00 1983 Actually, I believe that the reasons for thinking the students were in danger HAVE been stated. It's just that you don't believe those reasons. Sort of like trying to PROVE that the earth isn't flat; some things just can't be done. <mike