berman@ihuxm.UUCP (09/04/83)
Over 40,000 Salvadorans have been killed in that country's civil war in the last 3 years. Amnesty International and others have documented that the overwhelming majority of these deaths are killings of civilians at the hands of Salvadoran government-backed right-wing death squads. A recent addition to the death toll comes from phosphorus bombings of villages in the zones of rebel control. The bombs and planes and pilot training are paid for by you and I. A similar situation has been occuring in Guatemala. The death toll is approximately one KAL 007 PER WEEK, WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER WEEK. Those deaths would not have occurred nor continue to occur if the Reagan Administration would cease proping up unpopluar military regimes whose historical time is passed. Where, O where is the comdemnation from those who moralize so against the KAL incident? For certain one horror does not excuse another, but those who find it so opportune and convenient to condemn the Soviet Government would do well to use equal standards concerning the horrors we presumably could do something about. Andy Berman
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/09/83)
#R:ihuxm:-51400:uiuccsb:11000012:000:695 uiuccsb!eich Sep 8 19:00:00 1983 Interesting that you call the current Salvadoran government a military regime whose time has past. 2/3 of El Salvador's voters apparently didn't agree; 5000 leftist guerillos absolutely knew they stood no chance, hence the death-threats against peasant voters. These are the same leftist who torture, rape, and murder the peasantry in their crusade against the yanquis (and for themselves). Support for the peasantry, according to Bishop Aparicio and the columnists Evans and Novak, is extremely low. Both sides play dirty. Only one side was not afraid of what turned out to be the most unfettered election in decades in that country. Why don't you stop paying lip-service to democracy.
loeb@uiuccsb.UUCP (09/10/83)
#R:ihuxm:-51400:uiuccsb:11000019:000:1086
uiuccsb!loeb Sep 9 14:19:00 1983
Although your information may very well be correct -- I'm not
sufficiently informed to be a good judge of that -- it seems to miss
the point.
To respond to a note that points out biased moralizing (by
participating in biased moralizing) with equal and opposite
biased moralizing makes the point of the base note in the very act
of refuting it.
We see a great deal more outrage over this KAL incident than
over the daily U.S, U.S.S.R, and various Rebel inspired deaths
that are happening every day. We've become inured to this sort
of political violence.
The reason we see so much anger is not the actual deaths, or
even the deaths of Americans, but the death of American civilians
as a result of a Russian Missile. We're ready to run out and take action over
this incident because it's new -- we haven't come to the terrible
realization yet that all our puny noises make no difference to
the giants that are made up of our lives even in the case of
direct confrontation.
What's my point? Moralizing makes no sense in international
politics.