Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: The Draft
Message-ID: <1762@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Aug-83 08:51:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.1762
Posted: Sat Aug 20 08:51:44 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Aug-83 13:14:41 EDT
References: <946@ittvax.UUCP> hou5e.719, <165@wxlvax.UUCP>, <912@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 26


	After chewing on this one, consider -- is your attitude different
	when the American ally is England as opposed to San Salvador? 

I'm not sure if this question was directed at me, but I will answer it.
Yes, my attitude is different.  If we are a democratic and libertarian
society, then we are ethically obligated to seek out other democratic
and libertarian societies as allies, and to shun such an atrocious group
of criminals as the El Salvadoran government.

The problem is that over and over we have made alliances with dictators
and repressive governments because it was conveniant to do so.  Consider
the Shah of Iran.  If you dislike Khomeini as much as I do, just bear in
mind that he came to power in a backlash against the Shah, a dictator who
we supported.

The argument is that we must sometimes compromise our ideals in order to
protect ourselves from our enemies.  This is illogical.  By supporting
the Shah or the El Salvadoran government, we are turning our backs on
those very things that make our own government worth preserving.  If we
have to become like our enemies to defend ourselves against them, then
WE LOSE, EITHER WAY.


	Alan Driscoll
	Bell Labs, Murray Hill