Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Power Crazed Murderers (a reply to jj) Message-ID: <1866@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Aug-83 17:21:14 EDT Article-I.D.: rabbit.1866 Posted: Sun Aug 28 17:21:14 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Aug-83 21:32:15 EDT References: <192@houxu.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 55 "I trust that you're being sarcastic." Well, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why stop there. Why not start assuming that at the beginning of the whole series of notes? While you HAVE answered some of my questions with your own opinions, you've still managed to maintain the veneer that it's the US who's the active party, and the rest of the world reacting, when the opposite is closer (somewhat) to the truth. About your comments regarding the Shah of Iran, Castro/deBatista, etc: Indeed the US (in the case of the Shah) did support one side more strongly than the other. The US supported the side that was ostensibly going to bring the country into the 20th century. While nobody (or nobody I know of) can support some of the Shah's methods, they were certainly above that of his opponents, both as far as human rights and progress are concerned. You mention that there was traditionally a state of tension between the Shah and the clergy, but what you don't mention was that a great deal of the tension was due the the changes that the Shah introduced (not just the last Shah, either) into the country, against the violent wishes of the clergy. While the clergy certainly have the right (and a special interest) to want to keep the population ignorant and controllable, I think, as did most of the people who were executed, that the people in general, and women and "heathen pigs" in particular, have the right to live as human beings. As far as Castro being a successful dictator, I don't see the difference between Castro and, for example, the Shah . The USSR is literally propping up Cuba's economy to the severe detriment of their own economy, just to keep their man in charge. Not only isn't this far from the Shah's situation, as you have it, (And I don't tend to disagree, except in the relative desirablility of the two individuals)it has a number of facets that the Shah didn't show. I refer to the providing of troops, weapons, etc, to any group that will de-stabilize a democratic country mostly, and to various civil actions as well. Unlike some of the people arguing in the newsgroup, I do not maintain that the US is blameless, or even competent in its foreign affairs. I do not think that the US should bring all it's foreign aid, including military aid, home, because whether we like it or not, we ARE the only thing between most of the rest of the world and the USSR. The fact that we've made mistakes does NOT indicate that we should go into another catatonic state like that which permitted WW II, it means that we should try to do better. While a lot of effort has been spent in these pages decrying the Reagan admistration's attitude toward central America, etc, there hasn't been much, if any discussion as to what we should do INSTEAD. A quick study of history simply discards the idea that we should put on our blinders and go home, so that isn't a serious attempt at providing a solution. AS far as I'm concerned, I will continue to be violently sarcastic and obnoxious with arguments that are presented without any historical or factual justification. I include gratuitous political attacks in this catagory.