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: U.S. foreign policy - a reply to rabbit!jj
Message-ID: <1880@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Aug-83 10:28:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1880
Posted: Tue Aug 30 10:28:43 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Aug-83 21:27:46 EDT
References: <194@houxu.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 76


Your lack of subtlety aside, let me comment on a few things. :-]

The first is that you STILL don't understand that the ironic
articles you are griping about are parodies of your own arguments,
with the words and phrases constructed so that they
argue against you.  If you can't figure out what to extract from
my articles, I suggest that you read Swift for a while, and then
return to the fray.

The second is the statement that the US is the most powerful 
nation in the world.  BULLS**T.  Sure it is, if you take the US vs. any
single nation.   If you take the US + allies vs. the rest of the world,
who, as you so gleefully point out, hate us, we (collectively, not
including you, unless you want to be part of the weak side) have less
military material, fewer troops, a lower level of preparedness,
etc.

You say that the US has the most troops scattered about the world.
Again, BULLS**T.  We ADMIT to having the most troops scattered about
the world.  Those two statements have NO relationship whatsoever to
each other.   Furthermore, our troops aren't engaging in combat, and
aren't ALLOWED to engage in combat <I don't necessarily think that's
a bad idea>, while those of other interests are actively fighting,
infiltrating, etc.  Thus, while we seem to have a lot of troops around,
they can't do anything, because their guns aren't loaded, and in many
places the ammunition isn't even AVAILABLE. <Read reports on US
combat readiness sometime.>  What we have is an inneffectual bunch
of troops stationed visibly where they provide the most propiganda
support for anyone else, who can freely, and without contradiction
point out that the US has troops who can't do anything.  (And, if
you've ever listened to Radio Moscow, they do say things like that.
Remember, you can't threaten a person who is laughing at you, like
Kohmeni (and the embassy students), Khadaffi, etc do every day.)

These things are stupid, no doubt, and I don't doubt that you are
itching to blame the government for that.  However, lets look
at the REASONS behind these various problems.  One is that
congress has passed a law of questionable constitutionality that
prevents arming of certain military.  Another is that the military
and executive branch realize that arming troops, even for self defense
would bring you (used in the personal sense, you whom I am addressing)
reflexively (read without thought) into the political arena screaming
for their elimination.

You go on and on about how the US has made all these mistakes.  You haven't
even begun to consider WHY the US has made them.  Most, in case you
haven't read your history, were made because of political expediency,
(read that as saying that anyone who did the RIGHT thing would be removed
from office) or conflicts of policy between administrations.

The public, of which you are a part, is responsible directly for such 
problems.  You must consider your actions very carefully before you
advocate abandoning the US's allies, UNLESS you have something
better in mind, such as how to support the "good" leaders.
Most books on politics seem to agree that good leaders can only
arise in a country that is educated enough to reject the emotional
solutions put forth by manipulative leaders, and well enough equipped to
resist the force of dictatorial leaders.  In other words, the
government of an emerging nation is (BY DEFINATION) bad.
<There are a few counterexamples, most of them colonies who had
the requisite education, etc, to succeed.>  While you want the
US leaders to support "moderates", you fail to realize that in many
cases there ARE no moderates (Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran among them)  available
who are known farther than their home town.  There are certainly moderate
factions of the society, but you must have a moderate LEADER capable of
popular support, who can resist the force of arms brought to bear from
both extremes.  <It is well known that the left extreme will be
well supported.  It's a bit unfortunate that that often leaves only
the right extreme, with the middle dead or incapacitated.>

If you can propose a way to support moderates, or indeed even propose
how to identify them, speak up.

PHEW!
jj