russ@mit-vax.UUCP (11/02/83)
Well, I was going to be my usual non-responsive self (the kind of
net-news reader that the frequent posters are always deploring),
until I got to Mr. Covert's submission. And even then, I was going
to let statements like "one of our greatest presidents Mr. Ronald Reagon"
go by unchallenged, with respect to both content and spelling -- although
I admit to being a little disappointed that Mr. Reagan's name was
constantly misspelled. (I guess he's not *that* great a president :-) --
in any event, that's the sort of decision I leave to posterity.)
But then I reached the following statement:
The argument saying that the US is only involved in global
affairs at the bequest of multi-national corporations is
simply not true. Private enterprise can ONLY exist in a FREE
and OPEN society. Therefore, such corporations are a necessity
in the newly developing nations.
Let me see if I can follow that one. It seems to be saying that we
need multi-national corporations in newly developing nations, in
order to insure that a free and open society is established. Well,
there may be those among us who agree with that viewpoint, but I am
not one. (I can just see the TV ads now: "And furthermore, after
divestiture, AT&T will be able to bring free and open societies to more
under-developed nations than ever before!" :-) )
In his closing, Mr. Covert declares himself "a US Patriot." If being
a patriot means believing that one's country is the finest place in
the world to live, then sign me up. If it means being willing to die
to defend one's country, I'll go along with that too. However, it
will take a very persuasive argument to convince me that the Marines
and Rangers in Lebanon and Grenada are "defending our country." If
being a patriot means that one supports the introduction of troops
into a foreign country, with the aim of establishing one's own
concept of freedom there, then count me out -- but then, I'm leery of
joining any club which has Messrs. Reagan and Andropov as members.
"THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT RONALD REAGON"? Somehow, I think I'd sleep
a lot better at night if Mr. Reagan were not re-elected next year.
Russell Finn
{decvax, mit-eddie, grkermit}!mit-vax!russ
NOTE: I have spent some time choosing my words carefully and
staying as much as possible to the point; I try to avoid any language
which might be considered abusive. I welcome responses via
mail (or the net), but I ask that responders do the same.odom@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:ihuxm:-66300:uiucuxc:21200019:000:1015 uiucuxc!odom Nov 1 10:16:00 1983 Richard; Are you serious? I mean you weren't being facetious or anything 'cause I'd sure hate to flame at you for a joke! I haven't heard that kind of rhetoric since the last time I visited my father's father and he's in his 80's! He's the kind of patriot that supports any military action the US gets into but has never seen WAR! I don't know if you're likely to serve or not but it sure puts a different complexion on things when your life is the one Mr. Reagan is talking about! I don't give a DAMN how bad he feels if our guys get shot! I don't care how STRONG he is or what HARD decisions he makes. I want an INTELLIGENT president capable of WISE decisions. Of course I recognize that there are times when lives ae required to be laid down in defense of freedom and human dignity. I just want to be very VERY sure that before my husband or father or daughter dies they did it for a just and honorable cause not for Mr. Reagan's political aspirations! Sorry, for the flame, but you hit a nerve!!
lllenoir@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:ihuxm:-66300:uok:6600012:000:332 uok!lllenoir Nov 1 21:04:00 1983 OK STAN.. Before this goes ANY further.. Am I now to understand that halting the spread of communism in the western hemisphere (ya know.. close to home) and and also the world is the same as pressing 'THE BIG RED BUTTON'???? I think it wouldn't hurt you to consider broadening your view of life and get a REAL view of the world.
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (11/08/83)
#R:ihuxm:-66300:uokvax:5000009:000:1611 uokvax!rigney Nov 2 11:36:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / rabbit!jj / 12:37 am Nov 5, 1983 */ <seriously, what's the use in shooting? We'll be dead and laid to rest anyhow? There! That should start an argument.> /* ---------- */ In fact, some noted analysts have made the point that when the time comes to use our strategic weaponry, there's no longer any reason to use it. The chief virtue of massive nuclear weaponry lies in deterrence, and if deterrence is to be credible then it is vital that the enemy never feel that the U.S. would be unwilling to reply in force. On a more limited scale, that's one of the reasons presidents don't answer what-if questions; they prefer to keep their options open, and let the enemy have to guess. The greatest danger in espousing a position is if you're not willing to back it up. Japan interpreted the anti-war and isolationist statements of 30's America as an unwillingness to fight a prolonged war, and based their plans on that. But after Japan attacked, the U.S. changed its position with blinding swiftness and went to war anyway. Perhaps if the U.S. had made clear that it wouldn't tolerate Japanese Expansionism from the beginning, a lot of pain could've been avoided. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney ..!duke!uok!uokvax!rigney P.S. I wonder how much thought Presidents give to their response to a nuclear strike, anyway. It's clearly important, but just as clearly less probable than the various other concerns that face them. When (IF) the time comes to make the decision, there'll be terribly little time to make it in.
cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (Carl W. Amport) (11/12/83)
In response to "Re: US Casualties" posted by uokvax!rigney: I agree. I believe that the worst foreign policy president since World War II, Jimmy Carter, was much more dangerous to the security of the world (and U.S. interests in particular) than is Ronnie Reagan. The Soviets can now say, "he says what he means," "he enforces his warnings," and "he doesn't waver back and forth". 'Change his mind Jimmy' didn't allow them that luxury. Right or wrong, at least if the opposition knows what to expect, the possibility of accidental conflicts should be minimal. I think tough hard-liners, whether in this country or another, feel more comfortable dealing with their own kind rather than with an unknown quantity. This type of mutual respect tends to make relations more stable - even between adversaries. Carl W. Amport Naperville, IL.