Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes From: notes@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Grenada - (nf) Message-ID: <665@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Nov-83 01:18:10 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.665 Posted: Thu Nov 10 01:18:10 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Nov-83 22:40:58 EST Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group Lines: 86 #R:hou5d:-72700:ucbesvax:2900030:000:4565 ucbesvax!turner Nov 3 06:44:00 1983 Open letter to Mark Terribile: Here you go again: I read recently (Monday?) a column by Jack Anderson saying that there were some high-level talks going on secretly between the US and Grenada, and that Bishop was easing his stand on the US with the understanding that we would slowly extend diplomatic courtesies to Grenada. Let's assume that this was the case. Bishop is murdered by Soviet proxies. This sends a clear message to Third World leaders: Join with the US and you DIE. You, man, not your soldiers. YOU! Is "Bishop is murdered by Soviet proxies" yet *another* assumption, or is it, to you, as night follows day? Assuming that the latter is your line of reasoning and that it is axiomatic in your politics, please explain to us why Assad, Mugabe, and many other third world leaders are still alive. They have extended their own "diplomatic courtesies" to the U.S., and have not been murdered by Soviet proxies. What you are describing is quite reminiscent of U.S. foreign policy in the third world--in particular, U.S. behavior toward Iran, Guatemala and Cuba at those times when they were trying to work free of U.S. domination. That the one who succeeded is now a perceived threat is only to be expected, I suppose. Bishop's "stand" was, if I recall, that a U.S. invasion was imminent. This stand of his was established a number of months ago. How can one "ease" such a stand, without guarantees of non-intervention? And did Bishop get such guarantees? Given subsequent events, what would you estimate as the value of any such promises? Well, if having friends (and keeping them and getting them) means anything to this bastion of truth and justice and (horrors) trust- worthiness, then there is only one thing that we CAN do. We must say to the proxies: You kill my friend and YOU die. Not JUST your troops. Not JUST your prestige, YOU! Bishop was "our friend"??? You have yet to establish this. Jack ("Cold War") Anderson has it on high authority, eh? He also broke the news back in '80 that the Soviet Union was going to run out of oil by '82, and was thinking of invading Iran. He was leaking a CIA "report" that turned out to be ridiculously out of line with the facts. Even he can be turned around, Mark. Are you any less credulous? Friendly governments do not put our citizens under a 22-hour a day curfew with instructions given to MPs to shoot on sight to kill. If you had been out on the streets in Santiago in '72, I could have told you what part of your anatomy you could kiss goodbye. As it happens, the curfew *had* been lifted for the students, and the coup leaders *had* tendered offers to the U.S. government to aid in their evacuation. Contrary to earlier reports, planes *were* landing at and taking off from the airport by Monday. What stopped the students from leaving? Well, for one thing, the governments of the Caribbean countries that later took part in invasion were not permitting flights to Grenada. This helped maintain the fiction being spread by the White House that they would not have invaded if the Grenadans had re-opened the airport to international traffic on that particular day. And we have captured, so they say, Hudson Austin, who led the coup. What will we do with him? Will we shoot him immediately (which he deserves), trade him to the Russians for one of our nationals (not good for his health under any circumstances) or hand him over to the CIA and let them play with some sodium pentathol and THEN trade him over to the Russians? It should be clear that we ought to treat him in a manner that will make others less willing to do what he did. I'm sure military despots of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras would be cowed by such retribution into restoring basic human rights in their countries. After all, they know who their friends are, right? By the way, I'm still waiting for you to retract that bit about anyone opposing the invasion being an "ass". I think jj has given us ample reason to refrain from name-calling. How about giving it a shot, Mark? You have some credibility to gain by doing so. Your gullibility is, however, quite another problem. See my note "Reagan's Nixonescence?" in net.politics, to see how even a staunch conservative ideologue can have profound doubts about White House propagandizing. Almost everything you think you know right now is open to question. Stop acting like it's all historical fact! --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)