cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (Carl W. Amport) (11/04/83)
Everyone is flaming, we shouldn't be in Grenada or we shouldn't be in Lebanon. Alan made one comment, in "Re: Grenada: The Rolling Lies": "[we] made some serious mistakes during the [second world] war that we're still paying for today" that deserves much more consideration than even he may have felt at the time. I think a "preventive maintenance war" is worth MORE than 40 years of problems. If, after WW II, the allies would have followed Churchill's advice and pushed the USSR out of eastern Europe, the troubles in Europe would be few. History has shown that a united Germany is more than the equal of Russia. Think of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Germany as free and independent countries -- surely we wouldn't need any Cruise missiles in Europe. Those countries could guarantee their own security - it would also be economically better for the US. The war could have been quick and easy. The US Army in Europe, after Germany surrendered, was much larger than that of the USSR - they had suffered many more casualties and had fought a much longer war - we also had the A-bomb as a very convincing threat. However, our leaders did not wish to fight, believing that the US people would not stand for our country prolonging the war in Europe by picking a new fight - and we still had not yet defeated the Japanese. We turned eastern Europe over to the USSR on a platter - much to the dismay of our European Allies who could look back at history. We were new in the world power game - Russia, France, Britain, Germany, etc were not!!! We THOUGHT we had the right answers and would do it our way. Even if the US people had not approved of fighting the USSR, most military people in Europe, who were seeing it like it was, believed we should have pushed the USSR back to their borders - even if it took another war effort! SOMETIMES LEADERS, WHO ARE MORE INFORMED, SHOULD DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY EVEN THOUGH PUBLIC OPINION MAY BE AGAINST THEM. Too bad Churchill didn't have more influence back in 1945 and 46 and couldn't make the US political leaders listen to his years of experience. I will not pass judgement on the US move into Grenada or Lebanon or even consider comparing Reagan to a leader like Churchill, but there is a lot more to consider than the here and now - the future is always at stake when world politics are involved. Look at the mistakes in Iran, Cuba, Europe, etc. . . Commenting on foreign policy takes hindsight AND foresight, NOT emotions! Carl W. Amport
smb@ulysses.UUCP (11/05/83)
Carl Amport's comments about long-term effects are worth considering. Of course, it's possible to come to different conclusions than he has. For example, consider the ill will towards the US in Latin America as a result of our Grenadan adventure. Popular opposition to the cruise missle deployments has grown substantially in Europe. (I'm not saying I'm for deployment (nor am I saying I'm against it); it's just that most hardliners in this country who support the invasion of Grenada also support the cruise missles. Which is worth more?) --Steve Bellovin