quark@dartvax.UUCP (10/28/83)
I'd just like to add something to this report. I think that the invasion was more than a ploy to help insure Reagan's re-election next year (in this regard, I personally think it will not). On the one hand, it tested the waters of U.S. public and world opinion for a possible invasion of Nicaragua insofar as the CIA trained emigres are not faring so well. Secondly, it appears to be a clear statement that 'gunboat diplomacy' is being re-established and that the Grenadan fate might well be shared by other nations which don't fit Reagan's 'norms' of behavior. Lastly, the U.S. has a long and sad history of overthrowing governments of sovereign states either covertly or openly. This was not so much the result of not following our 'norms' in a moral sense but because the interests of many of our large corporations might have been jeopardized in a financial way. In the case of Grenada and other of the Central American nations, United Fruits (now United Brands) made most of its fortune by running massive plantations for banana and other fruit production. There are also untapped oil reserves in the Caribbean basin which are only now being developed. Anaconda copper in Chile, the oil companies in the Middle East (Iran, 1953), and the list goes on. We've been hearing so much of Reagan's 'Soviet threat' lately that it's time to realize we are not exactly the 'guardian of democracy' we are purported to be. Sorry for the flame --- Ken Schwartzman ---- !decvax!dartvax!quark
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (11/01/83)
I heard an interview on CBC radio (a program called "Sunday Morning",
Sunday at 9 am, very informative, this week devoted to Grenada) with
a US military advisor who had visited/investigated the airport. His
comment: "obviously not for military airlifts. No taxiway beside the
runway, only turnoff in the middle of the length of the runway. ...
I wouldn't design a runway like that..too slow to land, get off the runway
for the next plane..and neither would the Cuban/Russian army"
-- Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG,
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!mason
or {decvax,linus,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!mason (UUCP)kramer@utcsrgv.UUCP (Bryan M. Kramer) (11/01/83)
The day before the invasion we were having a discussion over coffee
break. The subject was what could Reagan do about the Beirut massacre
that would give him any chance of being re-elected. The obvious
answer was to shift the attention of the media, and the consensus was
that this was best done through invading Grenada.
--
Bryan M. Kramer
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!utai!kramerweber@fluke.UUCP (Ken Weber) (11/02/83)
As I read the various articles on this subject, it occurs to me that this healthy exchange of view points would not be possible under a typical Marxist government. I agree that war and bloodshed should be avoided when ever possible, but if the cost of avoiding such conflict is the the loss of personal freedom, my gut feel is,.. failure to try and stop that loss would be a far worse option in the long run. There seems to be a "peace at any price" attitude present in some articles and I dont think the authors of same realize how costly that could really be if individual freedom is the price. There may be better ways to handle these matters, but no action is not one of them, and any action will always be condemed by someone. Ken
pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) (11/05/83)
>As I read the various articles on this subject, it occurs to me that this >healthy exchange of view points would not be possible under a typical >Marxist government. I have never quite understood what right wing fanatics mean when they continually point this out. If we did not all believe that our country is morally superior to the Soviet Union, we wouldn't bother arguing about the invasion of Grenada in the first place. > I agree that war and bloodshed should be avoided > when ever possible, I thought that the main thrust of the criticism of the invasion was precisely over the question of whether or not it was possible to resolve the problem in a peaceful manner. > but if the cost of avoiding such conflict is the > the loss of personal freedom, I'm sure that a Marxist government in Grenada was no threat whatsoever to your personal freedom. By the way, why aren't you complaining about the threat to personal freedom posed by the Reagan administrations new secrecy regulations. Or by the secrecy imposed on the invasion when the press was not allowed to cover it freely? Personal freedom without knowledge of the true state of affairs is illusory. Did the Russian people support the downing of the KAL 747 because they have no personal freedom, or because they have no way of determining the true facts of the matter? The Russians have learned that the way to control their population is to control the information they receive. I fear that we are in danger of learning the same lesson. > my gut feel is,.. failure to try and stop that >loss would be a far worse option in the long run. I sincerely hope that our national foreign policy is based on something more than someones gut feel. I hope that it is based on a healthy exchange of views by a broad cross section of the American public. I am very much afraid that it isn't. > There seems to be a >"peace at any price" attitude present in some articles Please be more specific. Perhaps you could provide a cost/benefit analysis of peace to guide us in our peace purchase decisions. Can you point to specific articles that have incorrect pricing information in them? > and I dont think >the authors of same realize how costly that could really be if individual >freedom is the price. Could you possibly explain how you reached this conclusion? It is extremely easy to make an argument that the biggest threats to our own personal freedom come from Washington, not Moscow. For example, the gun lobby screams that the government is trying to disarm them. The creationists wail that their scientific freedom is being abridged by the teaching of evolution. The feminists bitch that won't be free until the ERA passes. The westerners gripe that their freedom to cut down all the forests in the U.S. is being hampered by the Interior Department. Potheads grumble that their right to pursue better living through chemistry is thwarted by all those unnecessary drug laws. Hmmmm. Maybe we *should* send the Marines into Washington. >There may be better ways to handle these matters, but no action is >not one of them, We found no action to be perfectly acceptable in Afghanistan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Tibet. Please provide some supporting arguments for the assertion that no action would not have been a better way of handling the Grenada problem. Please explain why those same arguments do not apply to any of the aforementioned countries. > and any action will always be condemed by someone. Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. I guess thats just one of the drawbacks of too much freedom. Phil Polli BTL Naperville ihuxl!pvp
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (11/08/83)
As I read the various articles on this subject, it occurs to me that
this healthy exchange of view points would not be possible under a
typical Marxist government. . . .
Ken
If you mean repressive government, say repressive government. It is not clear
to me that Marxism requires repression, any more than it is clear that a free
market state guarantees a lack of repression. The part of the quote referring
to Marxist government is no more than unsubstantiated speculation.
There are repressive states in the world. Some of them claim to be Marxist,
Communist or what have you. Some of these states also claim to be democratic
and free market. We can criticism them for being repressive. THAT'S THE ISSUE.
What quarrel could you have with a Marxist state that wasn't repressive? There
may be a fairly good correlation between repression and "Marxism", but they are
NOT the same thing. Suggesting such is semantic confusion.
Any responses to this should be posted to net.politics or net.flame.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730tim@minn-ua.UUCP (11/11/83)
I am going to post this here because I don't want anyone who read the origional to have only that side. If you want a follow-up in a group, post the article in that group! To begin with there is no such thing a Maxist goverment or a free market goverment. Can you tell me a goverment that has absolutely no controls on what is done in the market place. Also, there is no goverment that goes by the teachings of Marx. The USSR is a far cry from Marxism. Now I will not talk of either of these forms of idealistic goverment. I will talk of say the US vs USSR. Did you notice the term *free* market? If a goverment does not have a free market, I hold that it would be very difficult to have a free people. While Marxism and Communism are ment to free the people, in reality, they do not work; at least not the way that human nature is today. Any attempt at it seems to curtail personal freedom along with the market place's freedom. We may now move this to some other group.