Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!cbosgd!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: El Salvador: Opinions. - (nf)
Message-ID: <2709@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Sep-83 22:30:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2709
Posted: Mon Sep  5 22:30:36 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Sep-83 16:37:39 EDT
Lines: 23

#R:ecn-ed:-18900:uiuccsb:11000004:000:1210
uiuccsb!grunwald    Sep  5 14:42:00 1983

  You know, I find it amazing that people automatically assume that any
group of revolutionaries which attack a "friendly" government are "commies."

  In the '30s, there was a similar revolutionary effort in El Salvador. The
government of that time said it was "commies" and killed 10,000 of its own
people in one week.

  The current struggle is not recent -- it has been going on for many years.
There were attempts at revolution in the early '70s. The revolution was not
started by "communist insurgents," it was started by the teachers unions, the
farmers unions, etc etc etc. Their ideological bent is more towards democratic
socialism (which many americans seem to equate with communisim).
  Their acquisition of Soviet arms is unfortunate; however the saying "any port
in a storm" fits well here -- they were having trouble getting arms from any
other source. However, they seem to get most of their arms from corrupt 
government troops and officials (i.e. the arms we sell the government).

  So, before you go calling them "commies", why don't you find some more
substantial backing before applying this image-laden word? It detracts from
your argument to use such emotional phrases in a discussion.