tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (10/22/87)
In article <2052@encore.UUCP> fay@encore.UUCP (Peter Fay) writes ...
) The U.S. State Dept. (and of course FBI, CIA) wants to prevent
) all contact possible between people of the U.S. and socialist
) countries. This contact seriously undermines ...
Of course, don't forget that the govt of the USSR (and its slave
states) does the same thing. Their populations are, if
anything, more blinkered by their governments than we are by
ours.
An interesting reply from khayo@sonia...
) Funny - last time I checked you didn't need a permit for a
) satellite dish to receive Molnia, and Radio Moscow isn't being
) jammed (at least in CA :-)) ...
Of course, the voice of nicaragua IS jammed, by our government,
and has been jammed for the past few years. No, I couldn't
imagine why.
I wouldn't want to offend anyone by mentioning the state
department response to the threat of films from Canada on acid
rain. That would be embarrassing.
Naturally it would be rude to mention that we aren't allowed to
travel to Cuba. That's OK, Cubans aren't allowed to travel to
this country, either.
Tanner Andrews, Systems
CompuData, Inc. DeLandsrg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett) (10/25/87)
In article <8710220055.AA08950@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, tanner@ki4pv.UUCP writes: > Naturally it would be rude to mention that we aren't allowed to > travel to Cuba. That's OK, Cubans aren't allowed to travel to > this country, either. False and true, respectively. U.S. citizens are permitted to go ANYWHERE, it's just that your U.S. passport isn't valid in countries with which we don't have diplomatic relations (like Cuba). With certain exceptions like military personnel and people with security clearances we're not even required to notify our government that we're leaving, much less where we went. Most countries outside North America won't let you IN without a passport, but that's their law, not ours. Citizens of communist states, however, are routinely harassed just for asking to leave, and need official permission just to move around within their own countries.
tanner@ki4pv.UUCP (10/26/87)
quick!srg (Spencer Garrett) writes... ) False and true, respectively. U.S. citizens are permitted to go ) ANYWHERE, it's just that your U.S. passport isn't valid in countries ) with which we don't have diplomatic relations (like Cuba). The restriction is not on passport usage. There is an executive order (signed by ronnie) which prohibits travel to Cuba. The courts have upheld this order on the curious basis that it is a foreign exchange restriction, intended to prevent real (US) money from going to Cuba (they normally only get russian-bloc money, which isn't even very good as toilet paper). Tanner Andrews
FNZAK@WEIZMANN.BITNET.UUCP (10/28/87)
After reading the debate about the above topic:
I support very much establishing of an UUCP link to Soviet Union due to
the following reason:
There is an acute problem of people of Jewish origin in Soviet Union.
They face the following facts:
1. There is antisemitism in USSR.
2. Even if there weren't antisemitism in USSR, most of the Jews are not
trusted enough to have the same opportunities as their fellow citizens,
when it comes to high-level posts.
3. When those Jews want to pursue better future outside of USSR, they
are not permitted to leave it.
Since the Soviets do let Jews emigrate only after pressure from the
international public opinions, we must maintain several contact points
with the Soviets in order to be able to communicate to the Soviet government
the distaste with which the West views the failure to permit Jews in USSR
to leave it.
I Suggest that once the UUCP link to USSR is set up, it'll be flooded with
messages appealing for freedom for EVERY ONE REFUSNIK!
If the UUCP link is shut down by the Soviets due to this, it'll only serve
to reveal the true nature of the Soviet regime.
--- Omer
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
X
BITNET: FNZAK@WEIZMANN X SnailMail: HAGRA St. 4/6
(To send me mail from other X Rehovot 76 310
networks, use standard gateways.) X ISRAEL
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Phone: +972 8 471268
(you must use a Bell 103 compatible modem as I answer by TDD.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Be accessible to deaf persons via telephone - install a BELL 103
compatible modem at your home and remind your deaf friends to make
sure that their TDDs can work also in BELL 103 mode."
Disclaimer: I am the proud owner of my opinions. No one else is
responsible for them.
Copyright: You are permitted to redistribute this if and only if your
receipients are permitted to redistribute this.fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (10/31/87)
In article <959@percival.UUCP> James Deibele writes: >In article <8710271119.aa21258@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >>Let us not attribute boundless evil to the Soviets. >>[they] perhaps figured >>there's no point in humiliating a rebellious province (1917) that >>serves as a window to the West. >Interesting. The Soviets are not "boundlessly evil" because they didn't >take the whole country, just part. >[..] >You attribute selfish reasons to the Soviets for letting go of part of >Finland---that they want an area where computers, etc. can be more easily >slipped past export controls, where they have to put in yet another army >of Occupation, where they have to worry about uprisings. None of that >sounds very nice to me... These points are important. But still, my point is that they were not as punitive/abusive to a country that worked with the Nazis as they could have been. To forego territory grabs in favor of cultivating just enough goodwill to be able to smuggle computers and other hi-tech (that didn't hardly exist yet :-), or in favor of making less work for the army, doesn't really sound like the stereotypical Soviets we all know and hate. To get back to the original idea, UUCP .. the Soviets are undergoing internal convulsions whose magnitude we can only guess at. Can't we (just once) give them the benefit of a doubt and open a private line of communication to them ? In our mythology, the godless communist hordes of "Red China" have (since Kissinger) become politically troubled masses yearning to breathe free. Why is this absolutely not possible with not the Soviets ? IF glasnost is for real, and IF we want to encourage it, can't we amateur diplomats deign to let their computer cognoscenti talk with us ? The free travel of information is supposed to be a Good Thing.. #include <disclaimer.h>
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (11/10/87)
Andrew Jennings <munnari!trlamct.oz.au!andrew@UUNET.UU.NET> writes: > Have you ever connsidered in > any detail how much damage it does to the American economy diverting all > that money, talent etc. into defence when you could be putting it to work > on commerce ? Why do >you< think the current Russian administration is so > concerned to reduce its defence spending ? In an article about international commercial competitiveness, someone stated that the US military-industrial complex absorbs the US' best minds. He then adds that on any given day of the week, the US' first-stringers could doubtlessly beat any other country's first-stringers, but for Americans to believe that their *second*-stringers can beat any other country's first-stringers (read: Japan's) is unbelievable arrogance.
glg@sfsup.UUCP (11/12/87)
In article <8711101048.aa21018@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV.UUCP writes: >Andrew Jennings <munnari!trlamct.oz.au!andrew@UUNET.UU.NET> writes: >> Have you ever connsidered in >> any detail how much damage it does to the American economy diverting all >> that money, talent etc. into defence when you could be putting it to work >In an article about international commercial competitiveness, >someone stated that the US military-industrial complex absorbs >the US' best minds. He then adds that on any given day of the >week, the US' first-stringers could doubtlessly beat any other country's It is amazing that the US has stayed as competetive as it has in spite of the talent drained to non-productive activities, although I don't think that all of the best minds, since many find defense work to be morally unjustified (how could the best minds produce so much ineffec- tiveness ;-). Resources are diverted at all levels for military purposes, and consequently the US is losing its premier status as an economic force. The militarists do not see that the military power they currently abuse comes directly from this economic power. It looks like Russia's leadership is beginning to see this connection, and take steps to facilitate greater economic development. If our leadership continues to take our economic position for granted, democracy will be over-run first economically, then politically. The only encouraging thing about this is that they may have to free their people in the process. Gerry Gleason
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV.UUCP (11/12/87)
Redirect to alt.poli.sci .. In <2344@sfsup.UUCP> Gerry Gleason writes: > Resources are diverted at all levels for military > purposes, and consequently the US is losing its premier status as > an economic > force. The militarists do not see that the military power > they currently abuse comes directly from this economic power. I for one would be prepared to argue that US hegemony is fading on all planes -- economic, political, military (though *least* of all militarily). Witness European trade with Nicaragua (whose ship's did you think the CIA's mines hit, anyways ?), Baker's lame attempts to get Germany and Japan to further underwrite our fiscal irresponsibility (the proximate cause of the Crash of '87), and so on. For the US under Reagan, decline of economic hegemony and so political hegemony has been an embarrassment swathed in upbeat rhetoric, but the bitterest pills are yet to be swallowed. > It looks > like Russia's leadership is beginning to see this connection, and take > steps to facilitate greater economic development. We always realized better than they that military capability is predicated upon economic capability; have these ideological roles now reversed to some extent ? > If our leadership > continues to take our economic position for granted, democracy will be > over-run first economically, then politically. Ah, but what is democracy ? They claim they will let workers elect their supervisors. What a concept ! > Gerry Gleason Gorbachev seems to be admitting that the effort to create the New Socialist Man has failed miserably. After three generations they still have freeloaders and slackers that exploit job security. Free-market-ish incentive structures are called for. #include <disclaimer.h> Fred Baube Nat'l Science Foundation
ken@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson) (03/07/88)
Someone posted that it was nearly impossible to phone to or from the USSR. How difficult it is to phone out of the USSR I do not know, but to phone a USSR number from the UK you dial 010-7- and the USSR number. Of course, parts of the USSR are by our standards under developed and may not jhjave direct dial phones, but I understand that all of Moscow, for example, can be direct-dialled. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Ken Johnson, AI Applications Institute, The University, EDINBURGH Phone 031-225 4464 ext 212 Email k.johnson@ed.ac.uk
dan@WILMA.BBN.COM (03/09/88)
Whether you can direct-dial any part of the USSR, including Moscow, seems to depend on the political climate. A couple of years ago a relative of mine died and his family tried to get in touch with his son, who was in the USSR. They could not even direct-dial the US Embassy, let alone other Moscow places that might have helped them track down the son. I can easily believe that the situation is different now. (I suppose it's also possible that the SU distinguishes between different countries in the West, and may permit calls from England but not the US, but somehow I doubt it.) Dan Franklin
doug@isishq.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (03/13/88)
UN>From: dan@WILMA.BBN.COM UN> UN>I can easily believe that the situation is different now. (I UN>suppose UN>it's also possible that the SU distinguishes between different UN>countries in the West, and may permit calls from England but UN>not the UN>US, but somehow I doubt it.) UN> UN> Dan Franklin You can dial direct from Australia to the USSR, at least the Melbourne phone book says you can. As for the USSR making distinctions between Western countries, I think it is the other way around, the USSR is happy to be called. I also have heard that there used to be direct dial service to the USSR prior to the Afghan caffuffle, and it was one of the things cut off. I don't *know* that for sure. Does anyone else? --- * Origin: ISIS International H.Q. (II) (Opus 1:221/162) SEEN-BY: 221/162