courtney (04/15/83)
#R:cires:-203900:hp-pcd:17400018:000:446
hp-pcd!courtney Apr 14 07:38:00 1983
I can hardly believe how so many people want to compare SOMETHING (anything)
with NUCLEAR WAR...
THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THIS KNOWN WORLD THAT IS ANYTHING LIKE NUCLEAR WAR!!!
NONE of the ecological, political, economic, or social horror stories that
happen are in the same order of magnitude (or ANYWHERE CLOSE) as nuclear war
when it comes to their effect on ALL LIFE FORMS OF THIS PLANET!!!
Courtney Loomissoreff (04/15/83)
Courtney Loomis wrote: "THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THIS KNOWN WORLD THAT IS IS ANYTHING LIKE NUCLEAR WAR" I'll bet that if the dinosaurs really were wiped out by the impact of an asteroid, that that event was worse. I've read estimates that sunlight may have been cut off (by the dust kicked up) for more than 6 months. Not even a full nuclear exchange would do THAT. A more plausible statement might be that nothing that has happened during the existence of the human species would be as devestating as a full nuclear exchange between the superpowers. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!soreff)
arlan (04/19/83)
I would venture a guess that a few centuries of worldwide Communist "peace", ala that now known in Cambodia, would be just about equivalent to a NUCLEAR WAR. Just imagine those hoodlums with total control, and nowhere for us to hide. Imagine their geneticengineering, satellites containing behavioral transmitters tuned to implants for pleasure or pain. I would thus think that with the sainted successors of Marx and Lenin and Stalin in total power, that the net effect on the race and on the planet would be about the same as nuclear war. Thankfully, a recent poll of Americans, conducted by the U. of Mass., shows that a majority of us in the US woul rather fight an all-out nuclear war that submit to those barbarians. And a full third would rather for us and them, plus most everyone else, to be killed rather than yield. As they say on my favorite license plate, real Americans believe in "LIVE FREE OR DIE!" Flame on, lefties. TYour side of the world and your tired, old cliched rhetoric is on its way out. Hope I can stick around to throw in the final shovelful of dirt when the USSR and its sympathizers finally feel the wrath of those they oppress. --arlan andrews/indianpolis
guy (04/22/83)
I would venture a guess that a few centuries of worldwide
Communist "peace", ala that now known in Cambodia, would be just
about equivalent to a NUCLEAR WAR.
There's Cambodia, and there's China, and there's the Soviet Union. I
think the human race could survive a few centuries of Soviet-style society.
It would not be at all a nice society, but it would survive.
Just imagine those hoodlums with total control, and nowhere for
us to hide. Imagine their geneticengineering, satellites containing
behavioral transmitters tuned to implants for pleasure or pain.
Sorry, this sounds like paranoid raving to me. Total control? They can't
even control alcoholism in the Soviet Union. As I said, it's a lot more
control over than the individual than any reasonable person can stomach,
but it's not as if they plant little mind control devices in your brain.
I would thus think that with the sainted successors of Marx and Lenin
and Stalin in total power, that the net effect on the race and on
the planet would be about the same as nuclear war.
I won't go into the argument about whether Marx == Lenin == Stalin. It's not
really worth my time.
Thankfully, a recent poll of Americans, conducted by the U. of Mass.,
shows that a majority of us in the US woul rather fight an all-out
nuclear war that submit to those barbarians. And a full third would
rather for us and them, plus most everyone else, to be killed rather
than yield.
Who asked me whether I wanted this wonderful 1/3 of the American public to
decide when I should want to live and when I should want to die? Who gives
them the right to decide that I should die rather than live in a Soviet-style
state?
As they say on my favorite license plate, real Americans believe in
"LIVE FREE OR DIE!"
Right. And, of course, the Un-American Activities Committee will deal with
those who DON'T believe in "Live free or die!" I might say that real Americans
don't believe in declaring that people who don't agree with their beliefs
100% as not being real Americans...
Flame on, lefties. TYour side of the world and your tired, old
cliched rhetoric is on its way out. Hope I can stick around to
throw in the final shovelful of dirt when the USSR and its
sympathizers finally feel the wrath of those they oppress.
"Your" side of the world? DREAM ON! Sorry, there are a wide variety of
left-wing views (by golly, there are even left-wing sounding articles in
Inquiry magazine, not exactly known as a Commie rag, you know); lumping
all leftists together is as stupid as lumping George Will, Jerry Falwell,
Ralph DePugh (of Minutemen fame), William F. Buckley, etc. together.
I, too, look forward to the day when there are no states like the Soviet
Union. Or like El Salvador. Or like Indonesia. Or like South Africa.
Or...
I prefer the "/bin/mail" interface to "readnews" (please, no flames, I find
the idea that any command I type DOESN'T refer to the last message annoying),
so I can't say I'll just develop the reflex to hit "n" when I see anything
from Mr. Andrews. However, as I said on an earlier occasion, when you
blast away without aiming, you often just shoot yourself in the foot.
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13}!rlgvax!guymyers (04/24/83)
Talk about cliched rhetoric! Your belief in the inherent barbarity of the Russian people would have suited you well in the service of either Kaiser Wilhelm or the author of "Mein Kampf". <flame dying off slowly>
orel (04/25/83)
Not having read the article which started this debate, I'm not sure that it is fair for me to comment. However, it seems that something was insinuated about the Russian people somehow being inherently somewhat barbarian, judging from the responses. It seems almost silly to have to say it, but Russians are no more barbarian by nature than any of us on the net. Most Russians are not Communists, either. The same is to be said of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, and others who live in the Warsaw pact nations. I say this from personal experience, for what it's worth...
tony (04/26/83)
re: Balance of Power?
My apologies for article 330, but it came out garbled.
In response to Tom Craver's article (no. 305), which brought to light
seven points indicative of a lack of political understanding.
1) To assert that there "is no such thing as economic coercion"
is a statement lacking in political sophistication. Such a statement
is representative of the calling cards of small independent commodity
producers and nineteenth century economic thinkers. The notion of
economic coercion does not just exist as an idea; indeed, Max Weber
clearly illustrated that economic coercion is a subtle reality,
operating through the elements of 'domination and legitimacy' (see
M. Weber, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, Vols. 1 & 3, chapters 3 & 10 respectively;
Frank Parkin, MAX WEBER, chapter 5).
2) Neither the U.S., nor for that matter any other nation, has the
right to decide which nations are worthy of support based on uni-
-dimensional criteria. To keep the world 'safe for democracy' seems an
outdated phrase, especally so since the U.S. continually supports
military dictatorships. Far from maintaining the status quo on the
principles of 'high ideals', which, incidently, are fiscally very
expensive, the U.S. aids these so-called 'democracies' based on
economic and/or military rationale . The 'high ideal' (safe for
democray) is touted around like some cheap prostitute, but it is plain
to anyone, especially in the Third World, that the U.S. is a hypocritical
expansionist power (via multi-nationals).
3) There is no difference between U.S. interest in the Phillipines,
Vietnam, Korea, or even Cambodia, and Soviet Union interests in Poland
and Afghanistan. The U.S., incidently, claimed (or gained the right to
claim) the Phillipines via their victory in the Spanish-American War
during the last decade of the nineteenth century (remember San Juan
Hill?). Sorry, but it appears a lack of historical awareness has
created a lacuna in your logic. After all, what was MacArthur doing at
Corrigador in 1942?
4) To believe that Phillipines President Ferdinand Marcos, and his
wife, rule democratically is a gross error of judgement. Do you read
newspapers?
5) Concerning Chile: it is common knowledge that Allende was over-
thrown not by a spontaneous military coup, but by a CIA-ITT plot in
collusion with the military. Again, it was for U.S. economic interests.
6) The U.S., since becoming a world power (post-1945), has shown no
inclination towards the respecting of the rights of peoples, especially
the Third World peoples. Indeed, they have shown no respect for their
own people on the domestic plain.
7) As for your logical construct towards the concept of the balance
of power. You contended that there is a fault in the 'concept' itself.
However, had there been a fault in the balance of power, then no-one
would be here since this planet would merely be a charred body floating
in space.
A.J. Watermanmmt (04/26/83)
Guy Harris, as a US resident, doesn't want the mad 1/3 of Americans to kill him together with the Russians. I suspect that rather more than 2/3 of those not living in the US wish that there was a little less assumption by such people that they are the only ones with rights and interests in the world. We would like to live our way, too, whether it is your way or not. And we don't want mad Americans or mad Russians to kill us because they don't get along together. Martin Taylor
pal (04/28/83)
Damn Right! There are LOTS of people (I for one) who wouldn't mind the US and USSR blowing themselves to bits PROVIDED they didn't touch us. Non-aligned and proud of it, Anil Pal
cdanderson (05/02/83)
re: Another Topic
As a Canadian- though not in agreement to our (read US) policies,
I would also like to see both the USSR and USA blow themselves to
bits, but not with nuclear weapons thank you. I have no need of the
resulting
radioactive fallout, EMP, ozone depletion, or
rampant epidemics.
In what sense can anyone in this world claim to be "non-aligned"
if one is living in and enjoying some of the (perhaps only a few)
more desirable features of that society you are aligned! It doesn't
mean one likes the situation -in fact, one can even be actively
opposing it - but you are still aligned.
Perhaps the only way to be non-aligned in an antagonistic
situation is to be a parasite on it, ready, when it dies, to
live in the resulting environment. This means that you cannot
have become dependant upon its offensive features (for eg.
cheap agricultural products from local or foreign producers).
While I, in Canada, am supposedly living in a country of
peace, non-nuclear principles and a mediator for the world, I
am all too aware of just how much I am part of an alignment
with the US; so much so that the first few images are a farce.
We are supplying the US with the guidance systems and (it
appears) test site for the Cruise missile; allow nuclear
armed submarines to use our waters off the coast of British
Columbia (the subs are from Bangor, Wash.); have allowed
nuclear weapons to be sited in three places in the country;
and are shipping spent reactor fuel from Ontario to be
reprocessed, thereby relieving some of the US's current
plutonium shortage (the Americans then use indigenous
supplies as the total supply is greater and the government
of Canada can claim it is living up to its rules of not
supplying weapons materials from its "Peaceful Atom" projects).
Though not happy with, and fighting, the situation, I can
hardly call myself non-aligned. To do so would be to allow me
to cast off the need for action as, Well it isn't me, I'm
non-aligned.
Sorry for going on so long, but hoping it was worth it;
Cameron (aligned but fighting it) Andersonzrm (05/07/83)
The main problem with "democratizing the economy" is that huge corporate interests are a chimera. The corpoartions that produce arms that are used against the junta in Nicaragua are, for the most part publicly held -- their ownership has been demorcartized to its fullest extent. "Democratizing" the economy usually means forcibly confiscating ownership. Of course the American people would benefit from minimal defense and, of course, minimal domestic spending. But to cut defense too far is to espouse isolationaism, and history has shown that we dare not become isolationist. So just who's interest would be served by abandoning Nicaragua to the Communists? Cheers, Zig