danc@orca.UUCP (Daniel Cobb) (08/04/83)
A recent article asked for a single major long-term issue that the Republicans and Democrats have dissagreed on. There is a very major difference between political stances of the two parties with regards to foreign policy and specifically how they view or perceive Soviet expansionism. To lump the two parties together and on this issue and say there is no difference is absolutely ludicrous. While there have been exceptions the Democrats have historically been isolationists, pretending that if they would just close their eyes, somehow the problem would go away. In concert with the news media, the Democratic Party contributed to our loss in Vietnam. And when the dominoe theory proved correct with the loss of Cambodia and Laos, they pretended again not to notice. There was no revenge taken by those who warned us of the consequences, but the Democratic Party was silent. And now the Soviets or there proxies are in Central America, where the strategic threat real and certain, and the Democrata are screaming about another Vietnam. THEIR Vietnam. It is simply by refusing to fully face the issue and support positive action, that they insure another Vietnam. Some dont understand what our strategic interests are in Central America. The Soviet Union and the Warsw Pact countries currently maintain a miliary force level in Europe that is nearly 3 times the force levels maintained by NATO. Their numbers of tanks and heavy artillary pieces far exceed ours. They maintain these levels at the expense of their people (because of the staggering costs involved) and without justifcation, because they are far more than what is required for defensive purposes. If war did breakout in Europe, NATO forces would need immediate resupply from the US. This resupply would take place from the East Coast, which is well within reach Carribean Basin warplanes. Even if their effort to interrupt the supply was only partially successful, there could be disasterous consequences n Europe. The same scenario could occur in the Middle East for our Rapid Deployment Forces, because they are planned to resupplied in the same way. The strategic threat here is real and obvious, and yet the Democrats sit by, mumbling Vietnam. nd Cc: Subject: Democrats and Republicans To: net.politics -------
jj@rabbit.UUCP (08/05/83)
What I like about these discussions about the difference between Democrats and Republicans is the way that each party's suporters argue. It seems to me that the Republican supporters argue using facts and logic (for the most part), and then the Democratic supporters call the Republicans a bunch of bad names, like "opressors of the middle class", "warmongers", or "anti-trade", or whatever. At the same time, they proclaim their intrangensence by stating that they will never vote for Reagan, a questionable (although certainly MOSTLY positive president) Republican. <I think their ingtrangescence shows why their arguments should be ignored, since they aren't going to change their mind, they just want a chance to work on people's emotions.> I think that the style of argument can only lead to one decision by any reasonable person, namely that Democrats are deluded, they deliberately use emotion instead of logic to decieve those less intellegent, and thus manage to be the REAL opressors of the middle, and lower class by the simple method of destroying freedom in the name of "justice". A good set of cases to point this out are the multitude of counter-productive social programs that encourage people to waste rather than produce, or to stay unemployed, merely because there is NO INCENTIVE whatsoever to get a lower class job, as they can keep the same lifestyle, using welfare perks. Undoubtedly the Democratic response is that I want to starve the poor so that they don't exist. This respose is nothing but a deliberate lie (and a knowing one) designed to manipulate lower class voters into voting democrat, even though the democrats only extend their slavery to the dole. (For those who don't call it slavery, I suggest any one of a bunch of books on hopelessness, and the results of a lack of self-respect.) What most democrats seem to deliberately not understand is that the Republican position is that there is already enough for everyone, if they're willing to work TOGETHER to get it. While the word together may seem to be counter to the anti-discrimination policies of a republican administration, I reply that the policies that support understanding rather than hate are much more effective in creating a stable equality, and that forcing individuals (including those who do not need to be forced) to be inferior because they are not a minority is NOT a way to maintain either a stable or safe situation. Bye-bye. I'm not going to bother following this discussions because I know that you democrats out there will just slobber all over in your haste to use quotes from this note that are extracted from context to demonstrate just the kind of emotional lie that you are expert in. I also know that (like the third law says) truth is easier to corrupt than falsehood, and representation much easier to destroy than deliberate misrepresentation, merely because detecting misrepresentation requires intellegence and training, which have been so lacking in the last 20 years <including my school year> in the public schools. I must say that I greatly resent the Democratic (and sometimes Republican) use of emotion to sway those who are less able to protect themselves. I think it reflects badly on both parties, but especially the Democrats, that they try to use ignorance, rather than try to ELIMINATE it. rabbit!<leaving on vacation for two weeks>jj
tim@unc.UUCP (08/07/83)
Let's not dredge up the domino theory, okay? The reason the pins started falling after we pulled out is that we had built up the Vietnamese through our long holding action. If we had pulled out a decade before we did, the Vietnamese war machine would not have had the incredible benefit of fighting us for all those years, and the domino theory would be nothing more than what it should be, a long- forgotten and unfunny joke. ___________ Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (08/08/83)
I just have to laugh at someone who probably makes more than $35,000 per year and lives in upper-class New Jersey (rabbit is a MH host) talking about 'welfare perks'. How far from reality we must make ourselves. (Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Visit the South Bronx sometime and see everyone 'living it up'.) tty3b!mjk