janw@inmet.UUCP (09/10/86)
Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped bullying his country with any further foreign aid. People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response has been so rare on the part of the State Department. But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer!
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/11/86)
In article <7802361@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned > meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support > for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". Which they are. > In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped > bullying his country with any further foreign aid. Golly, does that change the nature of the Libyan raid and the support for the Angolan insurgents? > People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment > abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response > has been so rare on the part of the State Department. "Normal and sane", huh? I suppose that next we get to watch you whine when the Soviets or Chinese start providing them with foreign aid. > But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, > people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and > controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive > not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. That's right! We should be economically pulling the strings of their media. Obviously we should ensure only good propaganda about ourselves. :-( > Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American > speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer! Mugabe is not a dictator. However, by those same standards, any backbone site could stop transmitting your articles. Perhaps we should persuade some to take that normal and sane response. :-( -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (09/12/86)
In article <7802361@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned >meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support >for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". >In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped >bullying his country with any further foreign aid. > >People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment >abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response >has been so rare on the part of the State Department. > >But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, >people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and >controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive >not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. > >Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American >speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer! This is a joke, isn't it. Nobody really believes that the US is going to be "loved" around the world because they are only willing to give aid to pro-american dictators, such as Pinochet and Marcos. The idea of basing foreign aid on politics rather than need is the perfect way to remove the US's reputation as an "international bully". I compliment you on a fine piece of satire... Bruce Kirby ----------------------- Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. -- Joe Jackson "Hometown" ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/12/86)
> > Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned > meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support > for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". > In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped > bullying his country with any further foreign aid. > > People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment > abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response > has been so rare on the part of the State Department. > > But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, > people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and > controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive > not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. > > Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American > speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer! 1)Robert Mugabe was *elected* Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in Parliamentary elections which also reinstated Ian Smith, (still racist after all these years!), former Prime Minister of white-ruled Rhodesia, to that Parliament 2)This is *exactly* the kind of action which makes the US hated throughout the world. Reagan considered it an insult to point out that, while the US was celebrating the gift of the Statue of Liberty from the French people, who had also helped the US gain its freedom in the American Revolution, that the US was continuing its support for a racist repressive government in South Africa, which was conducting war against its neighbors. Not only are Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, and the other border countries not supposed to retaliate South African attacks on their territory, they are not even allowed to *speak about it*!! What an arrogant, chauvinistic attitude! 3)According to Jan's attitude the acceptance of any sort of aid precludes the rights to any opinions or free speech. By this logic if you receive unemployment benefits, social security benefits, student financial aid, aid to the handicapped, corporate subsidies, you have therefore negated your right to voice your opinion. I often wonder if Jan has truly learned the lessons of American democracy and freedom or if he is still imbued with the authoritarian attitudes of Communist systems. He has simply transferred his authoritarianism and desire to repress free speech to the other side. The methods of repression are the same. 4)According to NPR, the American cutoff of aid to Zimbabwe (which incidentally has one of the most market-oriented economies in Africa and consequently the best agricultural production in Africa) was universally condemned by the nonaligned nations and may actually, paradoxically, lead to an *increase* in support for Zimbabwe from other nonaligned states in terms of economic aid. 5)Hypocrisy abounds!! Reagan cuts off aid to Zimbabwe for stating the opinion that South Africa has no business raiding and bombing its neighbors, but Pinochet murders the editor of a leading newspaper and the aid keeps flowing! Such consistency of principle!! tim sevener whuxn!orb
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/14/86)
In article <7802361@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned >meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support >for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". >In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped >bullying his country with any further foreign aid. > >People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment >abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response >has been so rare on the part of the State Department. > >But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, >people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and >controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive >not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. > >Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American >speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer! I held off replying to the dozen or so other useless pieces submitted by janw@inmet (why the heck didn't you put them all in one article so that those of us who disagree with you didn't have to go through them all), but this one takes the cake. Now I'm not saying that Mugabe is a saint, he has certainly let down the ideals of his revolution, but he's no worse then Pinochet, Somoza, the Shah, Marcos or any of the other dictators which the U.S. supports or supported. The reason for so much anti-American sentiment is our support of brutal leaders and our bullying of smaller and less powerful countries. Let's apply our policies evenly and stop aid to any country which denies basic civil rights to its citizens. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
mahoney@bizet.dec.com (09/15/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 12-SEP-1986 13:16--------------------- To: net.politics Subject: RE: A Pleasant Precedent ---------------------Reply to mail dated 12-SEP-1986 13:16--------------------- >2)This is *exactly* the kind of action which makes the US hated > throughout the world. Reagan considered it an insult to point out > that, while the US was celebrating the gift of the Statue of Liberty > from the French people, who had also helped the US gain its freedom > in the American Revolution, that the US was continuing its support > for a racist repressive government in South Africa, which was > conducting war against its neighbors. > Not only are Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, and the other border > countries not supposed to retaliate South African attacks on > their territory, they are not even allowed to *speak about it*!! > What an arrogant, chauvinistic attitude! > I have to say I was more than I little bit upset about the timing of the attack myself. It was during a dinner honoring the US. As far as I am concerned that is not the right way to honor someone. I am not sure if I agree with the cut off of aid but I can surely understand it. >3)According to Jan's attitude the acceptance of any sort of aid > precludes the rights to any opinions or free speech. There is a question though. If the US is so bad why take our money? One other question if Zimbabwe is non-aligned why do we never hear attacks upon the Soviet Union? I have no problems with a country pointing out what is wrong with the US. Constructive criticism is an important part of growth. I have a problem though when only negative is broadcast. If the US is so bad why is it that in the bad times the first country that is looked to for help is the US. Why don't they call upon the Soviet Union? I think calling for a balanced view is justifiable. That is something much of the Third World does not do. They praise or play down the bad things of the Soviet Union. The things that are wrong in the US are harped upon. I think there should be some change. >4)According to NPR, the American cutoff of aid to Zimbabwe (which > incidentally has one of the most market-oriented economies in > Africa and consequently the best agricultural production in Africa) > was universally condemned by the nonaligned nations and may actually, > paradoxically, lead to an *increase* in support for Zimbabwe from > other nonaligned states in terms of economic aid. > This something that I will not believe until it happens. Many of the African Nations that cut off ties with Israel did so, because the Arab Nations said, they would give them any aid they lost by the action. This did not happen that is why many of the nations are now restoring ties with Israel. They hope to get technology from Israel and get more aid from the US. >5)Hypocrisy abounds!! Reagan cuts off aid to Zimbabwe for stating the > opinion that South Africa has no business raiding and bombing its > neighbors, but Pinochet murders the editor of a leading newspaper > and the aid keeps flowing! What aid does Pinochet get? From what I have read Chile receives no aid from the US. This is what has made it so difficult to put pressure on the government. They are now considering using the World Bank against Pinochet as the only power they have. > Such consistency of principle!! > tim sevener whuxn!orb There are many problems with Reagan's policies I will agree. I do not see a problem with consistency though. If a government is pro-US it will get support. If it is not Pro-US then there will be major problems with relations. Brian Mahoney
brkirby@watdragon.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (09/18/86)
In article <5348@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bizet.dec.com writes: >>3)According to Jan's attitude the acceptance of any sort of aid >> precludes the rights to any opinions or free speech. > > There is a question though. If the US is so bad why take our money? > One other question if Zimbabwe is non-aligned why do we never hear > attacks upon the Soviet Union? 1) They take the aid from the US because they need it. 2) They haven't attacked the Soviet Union because it doesn't support a government that has bombed Zimbabwe. > > > There are many problems with Reagan's policies I will agree. I do not > see a problem with consistency though. If a government is pro-US it > will get support. If it is not Pro-US then there will be major problems > with relations. This is the problem that the US has in the world. They give aid to countries based on the opinions of their governments, not on whether aid is needed. In Nicaragua, the people suffer from shortages and terrorists because the Sandinistas are not "Pro-US", even though they are much more humane than Somoza. Why? Bruce Kirby ----------------------- Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. -- Joe Jackson "Hometown" ----------------------- CSNET: brkirby@waterloo.csnet UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdragon!brkirby
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/19/86)
[mrh@cybvax0.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: A Pleasant Precedent" ---- */] >> Zimbabwe's leader Robert Mugabe, speaking at the non-aligned >> meeting in Harare, denounced the Libyan raid and the US support >> for the Angolan insurgents as acts of "international bullyism". >Which they are. Neither Mugabe's assertion nor yours can make it so. The Libyan raid was self-defense; help to the Angolan resistance is interna- tional aid. Their country is occupied by Soviet proxies. I wonder what makes helping Savimbi less respectable in your eyes than helping Mugabe? >> In a very short while, he learned the happy news: the USA stopped >> bullying his country with any further foreign aid. >Golly, does that change the nature of the Libyan raid and the support >for the Angolan insurgents? The strawman is down and out. >> People often ask why there's so much anti-American sentiment >> abroad. Why, it's because this kind of normal and sane response >> has been so rare on the part of the State Department. >"Normal and sane", huh? I suppose that next we get to watch you >whine when the Soviets or Chinese start providing them with foreign aid. Why? Since he bites the feeding hand ... why compete for the privilege ? >> But is this the way to make us loved? Yes, it is: in many places, >> people know about the USA mostly what the national leaders, and >> controlled media, tell them. If the leaders get the incentive >> not to vilify the US, that makes a difference. >That's right! We should be economically pulling the strings of their >media. Obviously we should ensure only good propaganda about ourselves. :-( We should try to. *Only* is right: no propaganda is best of all. But subsidizing *hostile* propaganda is foolish. >> Foreign dictators sure have the right of free anti-American >> speech - but not paid for by the American taxpayer! >Mugabe is not a dictator. He was not initially, but he's close to it now. He knows a lot about bullyism, national and international: his people are busy hunting down poltical opponents at home and fighting rebels abroad. >However, by those same standards, any backbone site could stop >transmitting your articles. That would be like U.S. satellites stopping transmission of Mugabe's words for the press... I wouldn't approve of that. Be- sides, *I* don't speak in any official capacity. Words of a head of state can even be a casus belli. Jan Wasilewsky --- You call me unbeliever, cut-throat dog, And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help... The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene III
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/20/86)
[rjn@duke.UUCP ] [Mugabe's aid cut after he tongue-lashed the US; I approved] >I held off replying to the dozen or so other useless pieces >submitted by janw@inmet (why the heck didn't you put them all in >one article so that those of us who disagree with you didn't >have to go through them all) So it is your policy not to read whatever you disagree with... This explains a lot in your article, but it does not mean all you disagree with ought to be one big note! >, but this one takes the cake. Now I'm not saying that Mugabe is >a saint, he has certainly let down the ideals of his revolution, >but he's no worse then Pinochet, Somoza, the Shah, Marcos or any >of the other dictators which the U.S. supports or supported. U.S. never supported Pinochet. Are you arguing that, having supported one dictator, we are now duty-bound to support another? If not, what's wrong with cutting Mugabe's aid? >The reason for so much anti-American sentiment is our support of >brutal leaders and our bullying of smaller and less powerful >countries. Hackneyed hogwash! The USA is the Jelly Giant, the paper tiger; bashing it is safe, hence all the cries of bully, bully. To test the charge of bullying small countries, consider their UN voting records: even El Salvador agrees with the U.S. something like 20% of the time. So much for that myth. As for dictators, no big nation is as fastidious as the U.S. in choosing its allies - but you simply can't avoid some of them be- ing dictatorships - this is the state of the world. Using one dictator against another is often necessary. The real fault is that U.S. doesn't reward its friends and punish its enemies - so there's no incentive to speak well of it, so it is a convenient scapegoat, like the Jews are for anti-Semites. >Let's apply our policies evenly and stop aid to any country which >denies basic civil rights to its citizens. That would have lost WWII - no military aid for Stalin! Foreign aid is not charity. It is, and must be, a tool of foreign policy. Promoting civil rights is *part* of that. Jan Wasilewsky --- Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last - You spurned me such a day - another time You called me dog; and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys ? The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene III
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
> :[brkirby@watdragon.UUCP ] >> :[Brian Mahoney - apparently (so quoted)] >>There are many problems with Reagan's policies I will agree. I do >>not see a problem with consistency though. If a government is >>pro-US it will get support. If it is not Pro-US then there will >>be major problems with relations. Well, they seem to be moving in that direction, but it is not a consistent pattern. E.g., there has been massive aid for Ethiopia, which is extremely anti-U.S. And anti-U.S. rhetoric has been a staple of "non- aligned" meetings, most of whose participants are recipients of U.S. aid. The Mugabe incident is an *innovation*. >This is the problem that the US has in the world. They give aid >to countries based on the opinions of their governments, not on >whether aid is needed. On the contrary, U.S. aid has been *less* dependent on the recipient's "opinions" (a government's "opinions" are *policy*) than that of other world powers. It is only *now* becoming more realistic - and the "problem in the world" is old. The new ap- proach is likely to *alleviate* the problem, for the reasons I mentioned. Besides, no one likes a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Honest self-interest, combined with understanding for the interests of others, gets one more respect. "To each one according to his need" wouldn't be a wise policy even for a world government, and the U.S. isn't one. >In Nicaragua, the people suffer from shortages and terrorists >because the Sandinistas are not "Pro-US", even though they are much more >humane than Somoza. Why? >----------------------- > Of all the stupid things I could have thought, this was the worst. Just about the worst... Why? The people there are suffering because the Sandinistas are abysmally *worse* than Somoza's corrupt but relatively mild rule. The shortages are government-created. A forcible reorganization and regulation of the farmers made them miserable, and production plunged; regulated distribution made shortages worse; and they have been used throughout as a tool of control. Ten new political prisons have been added by the "much more humane" Sandinistas to Somoza's *one*. Condidtions in prisons are much worse. Somoza repressed the Indians, too - but under Sandinistas, this rose to genocidal proportions. La Prensa - tolerated throughout the Somozas rule - has been gagged, then closed. Foreign press is unavailable, too. Universal surveillance through Cuban-imported block committees has become the way of life. It was unheard of under Somoza. Universal, cradle-to-grave indoctrination has become the way of life. Official "unions" have been organized, and free unions repressed. The church (critical of Somoza and very popular) is now persecuted. The whole Jewish community fled. The country has been completely militarized - Somoza's army was small. The hateful draft was imposed - often drafting 13-year-old kids. Police numbers have soared. The army and much of the national life is under *foreign control* now. The Cubans and other "internationalists" are everywhere and are everywhere hated. There was nothing like that under Somoza. The list could be continued; anyway, Somoza's kleptocracy was *paradise* compared to the present odious regime. Blaming shortages on the resistance is a piece of that regime's propaganda; it is based on nothing; the shortages preceded the rise of the resistance and contributed to it. Jan Wasilewsky
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/05/86)
In article <117200089@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[rjn@duke.UUCP ] > > [Mugabe's aid cut after he tongue-lashed the US; I approved] > >>I held off replying to the dozen or so other useless pieces >>submitted by janw@inmet (why the heck didn't you put them all in >>one article so that those of us who disagree with you didn't >>have to go through them all) > >So it is your policy not to read whatever you disagree with... >This explains a lot in your article, but it does not mean all you >disagree with ought to be one big note! > Actually I have come to look forward to your articles. If it's from you I'm almost positive it will be some piece of commie blasting right wing propaganda (which you have every right to post to the net). >>, but this one takes the cake. Now I'm not saying that Mugabe is >>a saint, he has certainly let down the ideals of his revolution, >>but he's no worse then Pinochet, Somoza, the Shah, Marcos or any >>of the other dictators which the U.S. supports or supported. > >U.S. never supported Pinochet. Are you arguing that, having >supported one dictator, we are now duty-bound to support another? >If not, what's wrong with cutting Mugabe's aid? > The US may not have officially supported Pinochet, but Jesse Helms sure has, to the tune of providing him with secret information. I do not consider Mugabe in a league with any of those I mentioned. >>The reason for so much anti-American sentiment is our support of >>brutal leaders and our bullying of smaller and less powerful >>countries. > >Hackneyed hogwash! The USA is the Jelly Giant, the paper tiger; >bashing it is safe, hence all the cries of bully, bully. To test >the charge of bullying small countries, consider their UN voting >records: even El Salvador agrees with the U.S. something like >20% of the time. So much for that myth. > Bullying takes many forms. Humanitarian aid should not be based on politics. >As for dictators, no big nation is as fastidious as the U.S. in >choosing its allies - but you simply can't avoid some of them be- >ing dictatorships - this is the state of the world. >Using one dictator against another is often necessary. > But we're not just any 'big nation'. We put ourselves forward as the good guys. We damage this image every time we support an unpopular leader or hold back humanitarian aid because of politics. >The real fault is that U.S. doesn't reward its friends and punish >its enemies - so there's no incentive to speak well of it, so >it is a convenient scapegoat, like the Jews are for anti-Semites. > >>Let's apply our policies evenly and stop aid to any country which >>denies basic civil rights to its citizens. > >That would have lost WWII - no military aid for Stalin! > As far as losing WWII, who knows? No one can say for certain so that is not a very good argument. >Foreign aid is not charity. It is, and must be, a tool of >foreign policy. Promoting civil rights is *part* of that. > > Jan Wasilewsky >--- There is a difference between military aid and humanitarian aid. I certainly don't think we should give military aid to our enemies. I also don't think we should give military aid to anyone who does not give its citizens basic human rights. Humanitarian aid should be given to anyone who needs it, no matter what. Military aid should be a tool of foreign policy, not humanitarian aid. Please note that I realize the problems of keeping humanitarian aid from being misused. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/08/86)
[rjn@duke.UUCP ] >Actually I have come to look forward to your articles. Thanks. >If it's from you I'm almost positive it will be some piece of >commie blasting right wing propaganda (which you have every right >to post to the net). Commie blasting - yes... but that's not necessarily right-wing. Look at it this way: I dislike monopolistic corporations - espe- cially those that own whole countries and groups of countries - these are called Communist governments. I also dislike theocracy - and Communist rule is one. I also don't like militarism - and Communists turn nations into military machines. These are not right-wing causes. As for propaganda - I see a line dividing my opinionated postings from propaganda, even though it may be invisible to you. It is that I never use an argument to convince others that is not con- vincing to myself. >>U.S. never supported Pinochet. Are you arguing that, having >>supported one dictator, we are now duty-bound to support another? >>If not, what's wrong with cutting Mugabe's aid? >The US may not have officially supported Pinochet, but Jesse Helms >sure has, to the tune of providing him with secret information. He did not act for the administration in this, but against it - nor for any other branch of government. >I do not consider Mugabe in a league with any of those I mentioned. I'd say Marcos's rule was more democratic. But even if less, the argument stands: having supported a tyrannical ruler X, are we duty bound to support every ruler less tyrannical than X? >>The USA is the Jelly Giant, the paper tiger; >>bashing it is safe, hence all the cries of bully, bully. To test >>the charge of bullying small countries, consider their UN voting >>records: even El Salvador agrees with the U.S. something like >>20% of the time. So much for that myth. >Bullying takes many forms. And not bullying, only one form. Consider something much more substantial than U.N. votes: the oil prices that have been crip- pling Western economies for a decade - a vital interest if any- thing is. U.S. surely had the raw power to bully the Saudis and the Shah into concessions - but this wasn't seriously considered. Or consider the neighbors, Canada and Mexico - quite defenseless if the USA was really a bully. The US and Cuba become enemies; embargo is declared - do the neighbors feel constrained to follow suit? On the contrary, Canada steps up its trade with Cuba, Mexi- co becomes best friends with Castro - just to show these bullying Yankees. Do they pay any price for the boldness? Of course not. It is simply amazing how non-bullying a superpower may be. > Humanitarian aid should not be based on politics. Then it should be private. Government is political. >>As for dictators, no big nation is as fastidious as the U.S. in >>choosing its allies - but you simply can't avoid some of them be- >>ing dictatorships - this is the state of the world. >>Using one dictator against another is often necessary. >But we're not just any 'big nation'. We put ourselves forward as >the good guys. We damage this image every time we support an unpopular >leader or hold back humanitarian aid because of politics. We are the good guys compared to the other guys. Saints don't be- long in politics, internal or international. If you listen to the Harare speakers, we aren't the good guys at all - we are cri- ticized harshly, the Soviets not at all. So what image is there to damage? There is, however, an image to improve: that of a ready scape- goat. If trashing the U.S. carried a price, it would be much more scarce, and the image would improve. >>>Let's apply our policies evenly and stop aid to any country which >>>denies basic civil rights to its citizens. >>That would have lost WWII - no military aid for Stalin! >As far as losing WWII, who knows? No one can say for certain so >that is not a very good argument. I think it would - but if you concede it *might* - the argument is still good. >>Foreign aid is not charity. It is, and must be, a tool of >>foreign policy. Promoting civil rights is *part* of that. >There is a difference between military aid and humanitarian aid. Agreed. >I certainly don't think we should give military aid to our enemies. That depends... against *worse* enemies we might. >I also don't think we should give military aid to anyone who does not >give its citizens basic human rights. There's no clear connection - unless the arms are used to suppress human rights. I would certainly agree we shouldn't give them handcuffs and tear gas... As for arms - what if the country is an aggression victim, and we are likely to be next? Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's. I still think military aid to it was justified - at least until 1943, when the tide turned. And non-military aid had the same goal - to help the USSR withstand the Wehrmacht. There are also degrees in human rights suppression. South Korea is not a democratic paradise - but people in it are free enough to say that. North Korea is the most consummate slave state in the world. Compared to it, the differences in human rights between South Korea and Denmark are negligible. I am definitely for military aid to South Korea. >Humanitarian aid should be given to anyone who needs it, no matter what. (1) There's not enough to go around. (2) It is the people's money. Don't you think the government needs the people's mandate to give it away? (At least the majority's - I am arguing democracy now, not libertarianism). And if the mandate is: help some of the needy but keep *our* in- terests in sight when selecting them - don't you think that's legit? >Military aid should be a tool of foreign policy, not humanitarian aid. So don't call all non-military aid humanitarian... This confuses the issue by blending two characteristics: the inventory and the goal of the aid. Call it civil aid or something. If it's permis- sible to give away napalm for political reasons, it's not less but more permissible to give aspirin for the same reasons. You are comparing this to aid with no strings attached. But compare it also with no aid. I think all governmental aid should be a tool of national policy - which is what the government is for. Purely humanitarian aid - charity - ought to be private and go to private people. Only private people can be charitable or generous because only they can give away what is their own. Governments have nothing of their own, they just supervise some of the people's resourses. Yet there *is* a way we can, through government, help the needy of the world so that the help won't be misused but will benefit the giver and the receiver: relax immigration policy. As a rule, immigrants work hard and take jobs Americans shun; they earn lit- tle by U.S. standards and compared to how they benefit the econo- my; but they earn much more than they did at home, anf they help their relatives in the old country. All gain, no one loses. Jan Wasilewsky
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (10/13/86)
> = jan >>> = jan >> = me In article <117200223@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Commie blasting - yes... but that's not necessarily right-wing. >Look at it this way: I dislike monopolistic corporations - espe- >cially those that own whole countries and groups of countries - >these are called Communist governments. I also dislike theocracy >- and Communist rule is one. I also don't like militarism - >and Communists turn nations into military machines. These are not >right-wing causes. > I strongly disagree with your generalizations concerning communist governments. I do agree that the above description applies to the Soviet Union, but I would not apply it to China. The problem with people in your camp is there immediate condemnation of anything communist. All communist governments are not the same. Every government should be judged on how much support it has from those it governs. >>>The USA is the Jelly Giant, the paper tiger; >>>bashing it is safe, hence all the cries of bully, bully. To test >>>the charge of bullying small countries, consider their UN voting >>>records: even El Salvador agrees with the U.S. something like >>>20% of the time. So much for that myth. > >>Bullying takes many forms. > >And not bullying, only one form. Consider something much more >substantial than U.N. votes: the oil prices that have been crip- >pling Western economies for a decade - a vital interest if any- >thing is. U.S. surely had the raw power to bully the Saudis and >the Shah into concessions - but this wasn't seriously considered. > >Or consider the neighbors, Canada and Mexico - quite defenseless >if the USA was really a bully. The US and Cuba become enemies; >embargo is declared - do the neighbors feel constrained to follow >suit? On the contrary, Canada steps up its trade with Cuba, Mexi- >co becomes best friends with Castro - just to show these bullying >Yankees. Do they pay any price for the boldness? Of course not. > >It is simply amazing how non-bullying a superpower may be. > I define bullying as picking on a weaker country when we are sure of absolutely no harm coming to ourselves. Bullying is cowardice. The U.S. could not have forced the Saudis or the Shah without far reaching consequences in the Middle East. The same with Canada and Mexico. On the other hand we could and did bully Libya and Greneda, because the administration knew it would suffer no real harm or face any real consequences. The administration doesn't have the guts to tackle anything that may cause it to lose power. The U.S. bases its whole foreign policy on gaining and keeping world power. You obviously agree with this. I do not. The U.S. should base its foreign policy on supporting what is right and good for all the people of the world. I know this is pie-in-the-sky idealism to you, but I think it is possible. The U.S. has a tradition of winning all its battles (excepting Vietnam), but it is about time we realized that the Soviet Union and communism are not going to go away and we can not destroy them and keep the world intact. > >There is, however, an image to improve: that of a ready scape- >goat. If trashing the U.S. carried a price, it would be much more >scarce, and the image would improve. > The problem here is that I consider the trashing justified in many instances. You sound like the people who are trying to keep the 'The Africans' series of PBS because it has scenes of people speaking out against the U.S. I want to hear the complaints of people in other countries against the U.S., especially in Africa. We don't withhold welfare from people in the U.S. if they speak out against the government and I think the same principle should apply to people who desperately need aid. >>I also don't think we should give military aid to anyone who does not >>give its citizens basic human rights. > >There's no clear connection - unless the arms are used to >suppress human rights. I would certainly agree we shouldn't >give them handcuffs and tear gas... As for arms - what if the >country is an aggression victim, and we are likely to be next? > Then we should put our own asses on the line. We embarass and degrade ourselves by letting some repressive government do our fighting for us. >>Humanitarian aid should be given to anyone who needs it, no matter what. > >(1) There's not enough to go around. >(2) It is the people's money. Don't you think the government >needs the people's mandate to give it away? (At least the >majority's - I am arguing democracy now, not libertarianism). >And if the mandate is: help some of the needy but keep *our* in- >terests in sight when selecting them - don't you think that's >legit? > Certainly. What I'm really arguing is that I think the current administration is a bunch of twisted, power hungry little geeks who should be locked up as soon as possible. Unfortunately Ronnie was able to blind the people with his actor's charisma and get himself elected, thereby dragging his whole herd of kooks into the capitol. We have gone from a country that elects brilliant statesman and legal experts as its leaders, to one that elects actors. Unless people straighten up and take a little more interest in the political process, this country is in deep shit. >Yet there *is* a way we can, through government, help the needy >of the world so that the help won't be misused but will benefit >the giver and the receiver: relax immigration policy. As a rule, >immigrants work hard and take jobs Americans shun; they earn lit- >tle by U.S. standards and compared to how they benefit the econo- >my; but they earn much more than they did at home, anf they help >their relatives in the old country. All gain, no one loses. > > Jan Wasilewsky I agree with this entirely. Anyone who is not obviously dangerous should be let into this country with little or no hassles. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
slj@mtung.UUCP (S. Luke Jones) (10/14/86)
In article <8704@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >... >We have gone from a country that elects brilliant statesman and >legal experts as its leaders, to one that elects actors. >... >Jim Nusbaum First I should point out that I agree with this statement; it would do my heart good to hear that somewhere out there was a politician of the calibre of Thomas Jefferson or, for that matter, even Alexander Hamilton. That said, I should point out that leadership is not necessarily the same thing as statesmanship or legal expertise. A president can appoint most of the State Dept. and if she is a good LEADER, then that will be enough. The same goes for legal expertise: neither Congresspersons nor the President draft legislation any more -- their staffs do it for them under their leadership. Practically speaking, by the way, it would be difficult to find a single person who was a both brilliant statesman AND a legal expert because the fields are too disjoint in this day and age. A president who had been a brilliant ambassador might be rotten at introducing domestic legislative initiatives, and vice versa. Finally, speaking of actors: if political activism is so much to be distrusted in Ronald Reagan, why is it to be admired in Jane Fonda or Paul Newman? -- S. Luke Jones ...ihnp4!mtung!slj (ATT-IS, Middletown NJ, USA) "You should have bargained, Jabba. That's the last mistake you'll ever make."