ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/10/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
I had this crawly feeling when I responded to Daniel Cobb that I was wandering
into a quagmire. His response does nothing to alleviate my fears. However,
the gauntlet having been tossed, I guess I'll pick it up.
Cobb claims that I "give the appearance" of countering his arguments, but that
my counter-arguments are "absurd." (I notice he didn't comment on my careful
demolition of his use of the domino theory, but never mind.) At least once
he seems to have taken me seriously where I was not serious, and I can see that
I wasn't always clear enough. Here goes:
How can you possibly justify the actions of the Khremer [sic] Rouge? You
say they were simply "getting the jump" on something that would have
happened anyway, due to the "enormous devastation of cropland by US B-52s".
Using your logic, anyone's death can be justified, since they are bound to
die sooner or later. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT????????????
This is a fine example of responding to something I did not say. I said that
"it has been argued" that the Khmer Rouge were getting the jump on the sit-
uation. I didn't say \I/ had argued it (I have simply heard it used) or that
I believed that this was the Khmer Rouge motivation (I don't know if it was)
or that it was justified (I don't think it was). My point was that Cobb was
flaming about the fall of Cambodia without noting that Cambodia might not have
fallen had the U.S. left it alone. I mentioned the Khmer Rouge to demonstrate
the enormous devastation that the Nixon administration managed to wreak on
that hapless country. I was arguing against a self-fulfilling domino theory,
okay?
You say that since Cuba is already a threat and it is closer than El
Salvador, why worry about El Salvador, or Central America.
Actually, I hardly mentioned El Salvador, although I did mention Nicaragua
several times.
Obviously, David, the idea is to contain the problem. And when Central
America is "liberated", and the government of Mexico is on the verge of
collapse, will you just write that nation and its people off, too? It
seems that you do not comprehend the magnitude of the problem.
Guess I'm lucky to have heavy thinkers like Cobb around who do "comprehend the
magnitude of the problem." The central issue, though, is: are we "containing
the problem?" We were "containing Communism" in Vietnam, too, and wound up
with a worse mess than if we'd simply sat on our hands. There is a severe
lack of evidence that similar comments do not apply to El Salvador. (Does
the use of "when" rather than "if" in the above quoted paragraph mean that
Cobb has already written off Central America?)
Cuba is a thorn that we simply have to live with. Obviously I am not in
favor of overthrowing any government, but that does not mean that we should
simply give Central America to the Communists. That would severely threaten
the security interests of our country, as well as Europe and the Middle East
for reasons I've already given.
As long as we're repeating ourselves, I still want to know why a Communist
presence in El Salvador threatens us more than one in Cuba, which is nearer
to the US (like 90 miles, baby, which is one hell of a lot closer than El
Salvador or Nicaragua). I never advocated "giving Central America to the
Communists," so enough of the baseless accusations, if you don't mind. I
do suggest that current US policy in Central America is so far removed from
reality as to have nothing to do with keeping those countries non-Communist.
The US has an unfortunate history of propping up or even installing right-wing
dictatorships and then sighing with relief that we have a friend in those
countries. (I'm surprised Greece still lets Americans visit.) Should these
dictatorships be overthrown, we are left holding the proverbial bag, since
it's odds-on that the new regime is not gonna love us. Jesus, if we really
want to work up some good PR in the region we ought to fund an underground
trying to overthrow Duvalier in Haiti, or something similar. [I am not
seriously proposing this, but, hell, we haven't had good rapport with Central
America since the Kennedy administration. The way Reagan and his favorite
hard-liners like Clark and Kirkpatrick deal with the region may help to
explain why.] Finally, I have no evidence that Cobb is "obviously" not in
favor of overthrowing any government. How do you feel about covert aid to
the rebels in Nicaragua, Daniel? I note from your previous submission that
you support "positive action" in Central America.
You said that the Soviet and Pact countries might need 3 times as much
military ordinance/equipment as compared to NATO because of an (assumed)
high failure rate of their equipment. Again, that is ludicrous.
Sure it is. I wasn't serious, but I should have expressed it differently.
It is worth noting that the Russians are not stainless-steel supermen with
equipment manufactured in the twilight zone, however. Reports I've seen
suggest that they have as much trouble with their equipment as we have with
ours. I seem to recall a story that the hydraulic fluid in Backfire bombers
is alcoholic and quite drinkable, causing the plane to be known as the
flying lunchwagon. Can you imagine the USSR Air Force grounded because all
the planes have been drunk dry? Who's ahead in NATO vs Warsaw Pact depends
heavily on whose figures you read; some have NATO ahead, some have NATO
behind. There's certainly no consensus.
BRAVO!!!!!!!! RABBIT, FOR AN INFORMED AND REFRESHING CONTRIBUTION!!!!!!!
I hope this is sarcasm. I recently sent out a message dissecting the
"contribution" of jj (not rabbit, you knucklehead, that's the machine) to
this forum. ("Informed" contribution? Holy moley!)
By the way, Daniel, you're quite welcome for the editing of your submission,
but I will venture the opinion that anyone who doesn't even have time to
edit probably doesn't have time to think carefully about content...
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|ihnss}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@udel-relay
ddw@cornell
p.s. How come Michael Turner and Tim Maroney haven't gotten into the act
on this debate? I feel slighted! (I think I know where Turner stands,
but Tim I am not sure about.)