Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!houxu!welsch From: welsch@houxu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Power Crazed Murderers (a reply to jj) Message-ID: <192@houxu.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Aug-83 11:06:52 EDT Article-I.D.: houxu.192 Posted: Sun Aug 28 11:06:52 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Aug-83 21:01:10 EDT Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 137 This is a rather long reply to rabbit!jj. All of jj's remarks are indented and almost the whole article is quoted verbatim. Awww. Come on, Larry! After you take my argument to lengths that I never extended it, you don't like it. What a shock. jj, I didn't take your argument anywhere. I did quote you and ask some questions. Where are you taking your argument? Look. The Shah of Iran sucked. Do, or did you, have any BETTER ideas? Yes! The USA should not have armed the Shah and supported him. Iran, has traditionally had a dynamic tension between the Shah and Moslem leaders. By weighting the scales so heavily in favor of the Shah we caused the tension to mount and destabilize Iran. If we had not aided the Shah, he would have had to deal with Kohmeni much earlier and perhaps Iran would have become democratic. As it was, at least the Carter policies kept the Moslem leaders from forming an alliance with the communists and the Russians extending their sphere of influence into Iran. The downfall of the Shah was inevitable, just as the downfall of Kohmeni is. The powers in Iran, and right now they are almost all strongly anti-communist, will learn to work together better without the USA meddling. Certainly you don't like Juan deBatista. How do you like what you have now? Castro is definitely one of the better dictators in the world. He is certainly an order of magnitude better than Batista. Cuba is a classic situation where the USA felt it could control the situation when we couldn't. The USA felt it could starve Castro out of power. Castro had no choice but to turn to Russia and seek an alliance. If we had supported Castro, perhaps we would have a strong democratic ally in the Caribbean instead of an unwilling enemy. Yes unwilling, because Castro after the revolution, first appealed to the USA for assistance. Right now I believe we should start being friendly with Castro and provide Cuba with economic assistance it so desperately craves. Castro and the Cubans have never been overjoyed with their alliance with Russia and are very unhappy about being used as cannon fodder in the third world. With some very careful wooing we can change their relationship with Russia. Why did you leave out Ferdinand Marcos? (Or did you leave him out because of the disgusting attitude of the people who oppose him? He IS a really violent dictator, you know.) No good reason. Marcos certainly looks like he is about to topple, due mostly to his own stupid actions. I am afraid that the USA is so strongly associated with Marcos that when he does fall, there will again be an anti-USA backlash. You unwittingly point out a major problem with US foreign policy, the USA supports such extreme fascist dictators that we leave the opposition little place to go, but to the communists. Marcos, by assassinating Aguina, really does not provide the Philippine citizens with a whole lot of choice. What about West Germany, where they shoot all those wonderful Black Septembrists on sight? Isn't THAT a police state? I trust you are using "wonderful" sarcastically. West Germany has very good reasons for taking action against the the Black Septembrists. Having spent a couple of summers in West Germany and having many West German relatives, I can assure you that West Germany is hardly a police state. If you are confused about this, I suggest you visit West Germany. How about Maggie Thatcher, who threatened to use troops if necessary to keep the mills going? No different than Ronald Regan firing the flight controllers. I don't believe the USA should meddle in England's internal affairs. How do you like having your exagerations carried even farther? I am not exaggerating. Are you? If so, why are you exaggerating? Look, damnit, this world is far from ideal. I agree the world is far from ideal. I propose that the USA stop making a foreign policy as if the world were ideal and take a more pragmatic approach. We should realize that by supporting extreme leaders we leave the opposition of those leaders no choice, but to seek support from the communists. Remember when the USA was given a choice of supporting a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship during WW II we allied ourselves with the communists, because they were the lessor of two evils. Many moderates, particularly in the third world are given the same choice, because the USA does not provide a viable alternative. I propose that the USA provide that alternative. Rather than hearing some constructive criticism telling me what we SHOULD have done with the Shah and Batista, all I hear from you is what you don't like. How about some better alternatives? I trust this article provides some "constructive" criticism telling you not only what we should have done, but what we should be doing, some better alternatives. Where are we going to get GOOD leaders in a country that's killed them all off long before we got involved. Where are we going to find good leaders in a country that marxist guerrillas (sp!) have killed off the moderates, which is one of their KNOWN and DELIBERATE ploys to destabilize a country. OK. The US or our puppets frequently are responsible for killing off the "GOOD" leaders in a country. It is bad enough when the communists do it, but that is no excuse for the US to do it. Typical is what happened in the Philippines or in Chile. You don't like what you see, so do you have something better, or do you want to stick your head in a barrel of fertilizer and wait until you HAVE to defend your own home and family ON YOUR SOIL? I have proposed a number of better alternatives. No, I do not want to enter a war fought on US soil, or for that matter any war. Many policies that the USA is presently following have a higher probability of leading to such a war than the policies that I am proposing. Provide some USEFUL and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, please. Your tearing down and ripping up isn't going to help anyone. I have provided USEFUL and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism as you desired. I did not tear down or rip up anything either in this submission or in my previous submission. I recommend that you look at your own submissions to the net for "tearing down and ripping up." Larry Welsch houxu!welsch To those non-US citizens on the net I apologize for my use of the universal we.