Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: back in the USSR
Message-ID: <233@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Oct-83 13:27:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.233
Posted: Mon Oct 24 13:27:12 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Oct-83 22:55:51 EDT
References: <988@uvacs.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 24

In response to the writer who apparently thought it notable (at least worth
a net.politics article) that a kid in Moscow was afraid to criticize the Soviet
government on American television:

So?

I'm at a loss to explain why Americans feel it necessary to keep pointing out
how repressive the Soviet government is.  Most American leftists I know would
not disagree.  In fact, I'll bet more than 95% of the peace movement would
agree.  What's the point?  The only conclusion I can reach is that it saves
those who don't want to argue the hard points from doing so.  Instead, they
can keep harping on how bad the Soviet government is and avoid the question
of, so they're repressive internally; does it necessarily follow that we
should (a) become repressive internally too, so as to outdo them in keeping
secrets (Reagan policy, according to yesterday's New York Times); (b) engage
in a massive arms race to destablilize the world economy and make them even
more intolerant of internal dissent; (c) automatically assume that any nation
who accepts Soviet aid is a "puppet" and therefore deserving of its very own
CIA plot?  These seem to be the conclusions of many who feel it necessary to
constantly remind us how repressive the Soviets are.  My question is, so who's
arguing?

Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk