wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (02/02/89)
Sigh ... if you are tired of all this just hit _n_ now :-) Well, Mike, thanks at least for being civil. Let's see what we can say about all this. None of this is intended as flamage, though I may try to make my points rather strongly. In article <5360@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes: >I'm having a hard time understanding how US defense spending is based on >defending territory and USSR defense spending is based on conquering territory. >Admittedly, the military methods of the USSR are far more offensive than the >USA's, but that is a military doctrine--not a political one. Right. I was speaking primarily of military doctrine, although the Soviet political doctrine (e.g. Article 28 of the Soviet constitution) is just as "offensive" since it is dedicated to the spread of Marxist-Leninism by force if necessary. Which brings it back to military doctrine. >I'll also concede >the example of Central Europe, where a conventional war would probably see >Warsaw Pact forces on the offensive and NATO forces on the defensive. And the location where Soviet and US forces are positioned to come into direct conflict is precisely in Europe. > >But I can't see how you can state that the US territorial doctrine is >fundamentally different from that of the USSR. The USA has no problem invading >places "in the national interest," just as the USSR. Here I disagree. If we invaded "just as the USSR" we wouldn't give it all back so fast. We didn't extract reparations from Germany and Japan after the WWII, we rebuilt them. We remain in Europe today but not "just as the USSR" compare the Czech, Polish, Hungarian, etc. post-war experience with that of the Belgians, Dutch, Germans, French, etc. >Witness Grenada, A case in point. You are saying that you see _no_ difference in either the motives or methods of the US and USSR between Grenada and Afghanistan. Perhaps we will have to just agree to disagree here. I see a world of difference between the US and the USSR -- as exemplified by the Grenada action. >Beirut >Phase II, This was not an invasion. >mining Nicaraguan harbors, Indochina, Central America for the last >century, etc. I'm sure the Soviet point of view allows no distinction between >US troops in South Korea and Soviet troops in Afghanistan. It is this kind of relativism that escapes me. You argue that they think about us the same way we think about them and therefore we must be just like them. Let's see if we can sort out a few facts. The North Koreans attacked the South Koreans. The bulk of the UN forces in Korea were US forces, but they were there to stop the N.Koreans. In Afghanistan, the communist not-quite-yet dictator (oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say leader :-) invokes the Brezhnev doctrine asking the Soviets to defend world socialism against the sentiments of those ridiculous Afghani's. Yep. That does look like the same thing. :-) A Soviet wouldn't admit to there being a difference. That's glasnost in action. >If the same things >were happening in Mexico as were happening in Afghanistan in 1979, the USA >would have invaded Mexico. I think not. The _same_ things wouldn't be happening in Mexico, now would they. Words like _same_ are difficult to apply since there are so many differences between one situation and another. If similar things were happening in Mexico the US _might_ have invaded. > >Both sides fear attack and invasion from the other, When will we stop allowing the Soviets to use their collective mental disability (paranoia) to excuse their lack of civilized behavior? >and both sides will take >whatever steps are deemed necessary to prevent and discourage that attack. >Methods used to keep the other guys off balance may range from CIA removal of >legitimately elected governments to Soviet armed occupation. > >Undoubtedly the members of the Kollegiya of the Soviet Ministry of Defense make >exactly the same arguments as you do, William. Just reverse 'USA' and 'USSR' >and you get the idea. They don't _have_ to make these arguments. The only time they trot this stuff out is on one of their "peace offensives" with Western nuclear freeze advocates. Let's try this once more ... just because the Soviets parrot back the same arguments about their miitary spending that I might advance doesn't make it true. You are saying that because the Soviets say the same thing then either we are both right or both wrong. It isn't that simple. Their political doctrine calls for world hegemony (glavenstvo) ours doesn't. Their system is based on the subjugation of the individual to the state, ours is based on the subjugation of the state to the individual. Lenin said that it is A.O.K. to lie, cheat, steal, and murder to advance to cause of world socialism. Washington said avoid foreign entanglements. Our system is morally superior to theirs. Let's move this to talk.politics or e-mail I am sure that the rest of comp.misc is tired of this. Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/89)
In article <892@afit-ab.arpa>, William A. Bralick writes: [material deleted] >Their system is based on the subjugation of the individual > to the state, ours is based on the subjugation of the state to the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > individual. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Try telling that to the IRS/S, the DEA, etc., ad nauseum. Things have gotten so bad that, a few years ago, HEW/HHS tried to suppress *a board game* because it made fun of welfare and civil service! We should remind the folks in Washington about the way our system is *supposed* to operate. Lenin said that it is A.O.K. to lie, cheat, steal, and murder > to advance to cause of world socialism. Washington said avoid foreign > entanglements. Yes, he did. And we've been ignoring that advice ever since. The Monroe Doctrine is a prime example. Various invasions of our neighbors and involvement in the affairs of others are more examples. One can be fervently anti-Communist (as I am) and still not be pro-interventionist. Let's try ending Federal aid to the Soviet bloc and see how big of a crimp that puts into the imperialist aims of Moscow et alia. >Our system is morally superior to theirs. True, but we keep getting closer to theirs by expanding the size of our government. And one of the biggest impeti (impetuses?) behind expansion of Government power is always war or "national security". Check the explosions of Government power here during the War Between The States and the two World Wars. Believe me, tax resisters and draft resisters have more in common than they might be willing to believe. BTW, I understand a career military man studying our defense needs has come out in favor of abolishing both the Air Force and the Marine Corps. Says planes are giving way to missiles, and missiles can be fired just as well by folks wearing green as by those wearing blue; also that amphibious landings are not going to be all that common in the years ahead. Something to consider when drawing up our defense budget. Long live zero-based budgeting! Jeff Daiell (opinions my own, until taxed away) INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS! -- HAVE YOU HUGGED A TECH AIDE TODAY?
dlawyer@balboa.eng.uci.edu (David Lawyer) (02/09/89)
In article <892@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >the Soviet political doctrine (e.g. Article 28 of the Soviet >constitution) is just as "offensive" since it is dedicated to >the spread of Marxist-Leninism by force if necessary. Which >brings it back to military doctrine. Here is the full text of Article 28. It does not appear to be quite as offensive as you claim: Article 28. The USSR steadfastly pursues a Leninist policy of peace and stands for strengthening of the security of nations and broad international co-operation. The foreign policy of the USSR is aimed at ensuring international conditions favourable for building communism in the USSR, safeguarding the state interests of the Soviet Union, consolidating the positions of world socialism, supporting the struggle of peoples for national liberation and social progress, preventing wars of agression, achieving universal and complete disarmament, and consistently implementing the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. In the USSR war propaganda is banned. > Lenin said that it is A.O.K. to lie, cheat, steal, and murder >to advance to cause of world socialism. Washington said avoid foreign >entanglements. Our system is morally superior to theirs. I've read some of Lenin's writings and I don't recall anything even close to what you claim he said. I recall reading that there are a number of misquotes of Lenin in various publications and books. What is the source for this quote? [The above relates to computers since the International Computer Club (mainly in the USSR) is planning to join the net and we are discussing how to relate to them.] David Lawyer