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: Die-hard anti-US activism on Grenada - (nf)
Message-ID: <874@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Nov-83 03:30:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.874
Posted: Thu Nov 24 03:30:26 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Nov-83 03:22:16 EST
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 70

#R:shark:-12400:ucbesvax:2900039:000:3383
ucbesvax!turner    Nov 23 22:53:00 1983

Re: Die-hard anti-US activism on Grenada.

Tim Stoehr writes:

    A while ago, people on the net were crying for reporters to be let into
    Grenada.  Well, that has happened, and facts have been obtained.  But
    since these facts did not point to any US atrocities, but rather
    confirmed that the invasion was morally correct, I hear all kinds of
    whining and whimpering about a "fact-finding" mission, the quote marks
    suggesting that the reports were not factual.

Ah, "facts have been obtained", eh?  You're not quite so certain of yourself
to say "*the* facts", for some reason.  As one of the "whiners", I scolded
someone back there for moralizing about the accidental hospital-bombing 
as if this were some intended atrocity.  I did not particularly expect U.S.
soldiers to engage in the kind of atrocities that are often associated with
being bottled up in intensely frustrating situations.  (Grenada hardly fits
that bill.)  But "no atrocities" is not equivalent to "morally correct".
And I'm surprised to hear you use morality as a criterion at all--usually,
apologists for U.S. foreign policy adventures prefer to speak in terms of
the essential amorality of international relations.

						    I suggest that if one
    reporter came back with no evidence or pictures and reported US soldiers
    were bayonetting women and children, that alot of net.flamers would be
    screaming "bloody murder!", willing to believe anything negative about
    US government and military.

Well, we would certainly have some history on our side, now wouldn't we?

				 And when Tip O'Neil changes his mind about
    the invasion, after hearing more of the full story, nobody can believe
    that he changed his mind based on information he obtained, but would
    rather fabricate any other explanation.

Perhaps we read different newspapers.  The first official statement of his
that I read was to the effect that we should stand by our President.

					     Even Ron Dellums, who went to
    Grenada to see for himself, had nothing bad to say about the invasion,
    only that military actions themselves are unfortunate anytime.

Again, we must be reading different newspapers.

								    If
    Ron Dellums couldn't condemn Reagan for the invasion, then who could?

Ron Dellums condemns Reagan as a matter of course, and this event was no
exception.  Let me ask you this: do you know, for sure, that the members
of the fact-finding commission actually came away with more than they
already knew?  It surprised me that, when they returned, they had no facts
to report.  But then, military governments are not the best source of
facts.

I question the administration ABUSE of what facts they were willing to
release, and its contradictory interpretations of these facts, as well
as its use of outright LIES.  Are you (Tim Stoehr) denying that the
administration has acted in this manner?  Given its behavior, what would
you say about its ABILITY to cover up real atrocities?  Do you think
they would have the moral rectitude to own up to it?  You seem real big
on morality.  Is lying to the American people immoral?  I would like to
hear you address these questions, and not some false issues that I have
not involved myself with, except to object to their falseness.  If William
Safire can feel lied to, why not you?  Is it because you don't know?
---
Michael Turner